ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

BOARD DATE:	3 February 2020

DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190012907



APPLICANT REQUESTS:  in effect:

*	a complete copy of his military service records
*	his under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable 
discharge
*	correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty), for the period ending on 18 February 1992, to show his combat service in 
the Persian Gulf, his home duty station , and his foreign service in Germany and 
Korea

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the 
Armed Forces of the United States), dated 24 June 2019
*	DD Form 214, for the period ending 3 September 1981
*	DD Form 214, for the period ending 18 February 1992
*	National Archive (NA) Form 13038 (Certification of Military Service), dated 
16 May 2019

FACTS:

1.	The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. 
Code (USC), Section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military 
Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in 
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.

2.	The applicant did not provide a statement in support of his request.

3.	The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 29 May 1980. He 
entered active duty for training (ADT) on 23 June 1980, to complete basic training under 
the split training option, and was released from active duty on 20 August 1980.  He 
again entered ADT on 2 June 1981, to complete his military occupational specialty 
(MOS) training.  He completed training on 3 September 1981, was awarded the MOS



94B (Food Services Specialist), and was released from active duty and returned to the 
control of his USAR unit of assignment.

4.	The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 December 1986. He was 
honorably discharged on 20 July 1989 for immediate reenlistment.

5.	The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army on 21 July 1989, was promoted to the 
rank/grade of specialist/E-4 on 7 August 1988, and served in Southwest Asia (SWA) 
from 4 November 1990 until 15 May 1991.

6.	The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) on 14 November 1991, under 
the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for 
wrongfully using marijuana, between on or about 27 July 1991 and 17 August 1991; and 
for wrongfully using cocaine, between on or about 14 August 1991 and 17 August 1991. 
His sentence included his reduction to the rank/grade of private/E-1.

7.	The applicant's commander notified the applicant on 19 December 1991 of his intent 
to initiate actions to separate him from service under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c. 
The commander cited the applicant's receipt of a Field Grade Article 15 for wrongful use 
of marijuana and cocaine, and his apprehension while crossing the German border with 
nine grams of marijuana and three grams of hashish. He recommended the applicant 
receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

8.	The applicant consulted with counsel on 19 December 1991 and was advised of the 
basis for the contemplated actions to separate him under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, and its effect; of the rights available to 
him; and of the effect of any action taken by him to waive his rights. He voluntarily 
waived consideration of his case by an administrative board, and a personal 
appearance before a board, contingent upon him receiving no less than a general under 
honorable condition discharge. He was advised he could to submit statements in his 
behalf but elected not to make any statements. He acknowledged he may encounter 
substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a general discharge.

9.	The applicant's commander formally recommended his separation from service, 
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c. He recommended 
a general discharge per the applicant’s conditional wavier. The applicant’s chain of 
command also recommended approval of his separation with a general discharge.

10.	The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge on 13 January 1992, 
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, and directed he 
be issued a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate). The applicant would not be 
transferred to the Individual Ready Reserves (IRR).



11.	The applicant was discharged on 18 February 1992, under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct – abuse of illegal 
drugs. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms his service was characterized as 
under honorable conditions (general), and further shows in:

*	Item 7a (Place of Entry into Active Duty),
*	Item 7b (Home of Record at Time of Entry), XXX
*	Item 8a (Last Duty Assignment and Major Command), HHC 2ND COSCOM, 
USAREUR [U.S. Army Europe] E7
*	Item 8b (Station Where Separated),
*	Item 12c (Net Active Service This Period), he was credited with completing five 
years, one month, and 20 days of creditable service
*	Item 12f (Foreign Service), he was credited with completing three years, three 
months and 19 days of creditable foreign service
*	Item 18 (Remarks), includes the entry: "SERVICE IN SWA 4 NOV 1990 TO 15 
MAY 1991"
*	Item 24 (Character of Service), his service was characterized as "Under 
Honorable Conditions (General)"

12.	With respect to the applicant's request:

   a.	Requests for military service records should be sent to the National Personnel 
Records Center, National Archives and Records Administration, St. Louis, MO.
   b.	The applicant's foreign service in Germany and Korea is captured in Item 12f, 
documented as credited foreign service. The regulation that governs the preparation of 
the DD Form 214 makes no provision for listing the country the foreign service was 
performed in, unless such foreign service was performed while deployed in support of a 
named operation.

   c.	The applicant's service in the Persian Gulf is captured in Item 18, shown as 
"SERVICE IN SWA 4 NOV 1990 to 15 MAY 1991."

   d.	The applicant authenticated his DD form 214 with his signature, thereby attesting 
to the correctness of his "Place of Entry into Active Duty," "Home of Record at Time of 
Entry," "Last Duty Assignment and Major Command," and "Station Where Separated." 
The DD Form 214 does not contain an item that describes a separating Soldier's "home 
duty station."

13.	The Board should consider the applicant's request in accordance with the published 
equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance.



BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.	Other than the administrative corrections noted by the analyst of record (below the 
signature line), the Board found insufficient evidence to grant the applicant’s requests.

2.	The Board reviewed the applicant’s contentions and the evidence of record. The 
Board considered whether there were errors in the discharge process warranting a 
discharge upgrade and whether a discharge upgrade is otherwise warranted in the 
interest of justice. The Board found the applicant has not demonstrated by a 
preponderance of evidence an error or injustice warranting an upgrade of his under 
honorable conditions (general) discharge to an honorable discharge.

3.	The Board found insufficient evidence of the existence of a probable error or injustice 
regarding the applicant’s DD Form 214. The applicant’s DD Form 214 properly reflects 
the applicant’s eligible foreign service in items 12f and 18. The Board found insufficient 
evidence that the applicant’s "Place of Entry into Active Duty," "Home of Record at Time 
of Entry," "Last Duty Assignment and Major Command," and "Station Where Separated" 
were incorrect on the applicant’s DD Form 214. The DD Form 214 does not contain an 
item for a separating Soldier’s “home duty station.”

4.	The National Archives Records Administration would house any of the applicant’s 
available records. ABCMR is not a records custodian and is unable to provide a 
complete set of records to the applicant.

5.	Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a 
basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



BOARD VOTE:


Mbr 1
Mbr 2
Mbr 3

:
:
:
GRANT FULL RELIEF
:
:
:
GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
:
:
:
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
:X
:X
:X
DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

Other than the administrative notes annotated by the Analyst of Record (below the 
signature), the Board determined the evidence presented does not demonstrate the 
existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall 
merits of this case are otherwise insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of 
the individual concerned.





  X	

CHAIRPERSON

I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the 
Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):

A review of the applicant's record shows his DD Form 214, for the period ending
18 February 1992, is missing important entries that affect his eligibility for post-service 
benefits.  As a result, amend the DD Form 214 by adding the following entries to
item 18:

*	SOLDIER HAS COMPLETED FIRST FULL TERM OF SERVICE
*	CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 861229 UNTIL 890720






REFERENCES:

1.	Title 10, USC, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military 
records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. 
This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely 
file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in 
the interest of justice to do so.

2.	Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), then in effect, prescribed the 
separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from 
active military service or control of the Army. It established standardized policy for the 
preparation of the DD Form 214.  It stated the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the 
Soldier's most recent period of continuous active service. It provides a brief, clear-cut 
record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement or 
discharge. Table 2-1 prescribed the DD Form 214 preparation instructions; however, it 
contained no guidance for the description or notation of a separating Soldier's "home 
duty station."

3.	Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel.

   a.	Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor 
and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is 
appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards 
of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so 
meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

   b.	Chapter 14 of this regulation establishes policy and prescribes procedures for 
separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary 
infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil 
authorities, desertion, or absences without leave. Action will be taken to separate a 
member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable 
or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally 
considered appropriate. However, the separation authority may direct a general 
discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record.

4.	The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to 
Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 
on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency 
generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. Boards for 
Correction of Military/Naval Records may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial 
forum.  However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a



court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, 
which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds.

   a.	This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and 
principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority.  In 
determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency 
grounds, Boards shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn 
testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health 
conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was 
committed, and uniformity of punishment.

   b.	Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of 
service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not 
result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses 
or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for 
the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//