IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  1 March 2021

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20200001809


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  his under honorable conditions (general) discharge be
upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DA Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the 
	Armed Forces for the United States)
*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	DA Form 4700 (Medical Record-Supplemental Medical Data),
	dated 12 February 1988

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United 
States Code, section 1552(b); however, the 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 states, in effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because he 
was young and going through a stressful situation wat the time he was playing with the 
unloaded weapon after duty.

3.  On 21 January 1988, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He was 
subsequently assigned to Germany as a military policeman.

4.  The applicant provides a DA Form 4700, which shows he underwent a health risk 
appraisal screening evaluation at the Preventive Medicine Activity, Fort McClellan, 
Alabama, on 12 February 1988.  This form shows “stress” was indicated as a risk factor. 

5.  He accepted non-judicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice for feigning mental derangement by putting a .45 
caliber pistol to his head for the purpose of avoiding his duties as a military policeman.


6.  The applicant underwent two mental status evaluations as a result of being 
considered for discharge.

7.  On an unknown date, the applicant's unit commander notified the applicant he was 
initiating action to separate him under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army 
Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), by reason of 
commission of a serious offense, for feigning mental derangement and put a 
loaded .45 caliber pistol to his head.

8.  On 16 August 1989, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was advised 
of the basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects, of the rights available to 
him, and of the effect of a waiver of those rights.  He acknowledged he may encounter 
substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a general discharge under honorable 
conditions.  After this counseling, the applicant voluntarily waived consideration of his 
case by an administrative separation board and elected not to submit a statement in his 
own behalf.  He did request representation by military counsel.

9.  The separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of 
paragraph 14-12c, commission of a serious offense, AR 635-200, and directed the 
issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

10.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 15 September 1989.  His  
DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 7 months, and 25 days of net active service 
this period.
11.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review 
Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  The Board should consider the applicant's overall record and provided statement in 
accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance.

13.  The Board should consider the applicant's overall record and provided statement in 
accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance.

14.  Based on the applicant's contention(s) the Army Review Board Agency medical 
staff provides a written review of the applicant's medical records, outlined in the 
"MEDICAL REVIEW" section of this Record of Proceedings.  (Last Paragraph in the 
"FACTS" section)

MEDICAL REVIEW:

1.  The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting 
documents and the applicant’s medical records in the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal 
Technology Application (AHLTA) and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) and made the following 
findings and recommendations: While liberal consideration was applied, the in-service 
diagnosis of Personality Disorder does not mitigate misconduct.  Documentation is void 
of another psychiatric diagnosis, in- or post-service, for consideration.  Accordingly, an 
upgrade is not supported.

2.  Due to the period of service, active duty electronic medical records are void of 
appointments.  The electronic case file contains an August 1989 Mental Status Exam 
(MSE) noting the applicant had a Personality Disorder that was and would interfere with 
military performance.  The follow-up Chapter MSE cleared the applicant for discharge; a 
Personality Disorder does not mitigate misconduct.
3.  The applicant is not service connected. The applicant has received care since 2019 
for medical conditions. VA records are void of a psychiatric condition or medication.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that 
relief was not warranted.

2.  After review of the application, all evidence available and applying the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense standards of liberal consideration, the Board determined there is 
insufficient evidence to grant relief.




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:

1.  The applicant was properly and equitably discharged. 

2.  


		  
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):

Not applicable




REFERENCES:

1.  Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for 
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged 
error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of 
Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3 year 
statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do 
so.

2.  Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel) sets 
forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 14 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 that could result in a punitive discharge, 
convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence 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.

	b.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so 
meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

3.  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.

4.  AR 15-185 prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records 
by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR.  The ABCMR begins its 
consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The 
applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the 
evidence.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20200001809


5

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1