ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
IN THE CASE OF:  
BOARD DATE: 29 September 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200009156 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: 
. Correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), ending 5 January 2009, to show his character of service as honorable, vice under honorable conditions 
. Permission to personally appear before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
. 
DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) 

. 
DD Form 215 (Correction of DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)) 


FACTS: 
1. 
The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records: Claims Incident Thereto). 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 states, in effect, while serving as an Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Soldier in the Missouri Army National Guard (MOARNG), the MOARNG accused him of being absent without leave (AWOL) and separated him under other than honorable conditions. Because he was actually not AWOL, the MOARNG had to correct his DD Form 214 to show he voluntarily resigned. The applicant's current problem is the MOARNG only upgraded him to a general under honorable conditions. 

3. 
The applicant's service records show: 


a. On 14 April 2005, after he had served as an enlisted Soldier in the Regular Army, the applicant enlisted for 6 years into the MOARNG and the Army of the Reserve. On 20 January 2006, he extended his enlistment by 1 year, amending his expiration term of service (ETS) date to 13 April 2012. 
b. 
MOARNG Orders, dated 8 November 2006, ordered the applicant to Full-Time National Guard Duty (FTNGD); the orders indicated he was to serve an initial AGR tour as his unit's administrative noncommissioned officer (Admin NCO) from 13 November 2006 to 12 November 2009. The order's authority was Title 32 (National Guard), USC, Section 502 (f) (Required Drills and Field Exercises – Authority to Order ARNG Soldiers to Active Duty). 

c. 
MOARNG Orders, dated 29 November 2007, renewed the applicant's AGR status and directed him to continue his service as his unit's Admin NCO during the period 1 December 2007 until 12 November 2009. 

d. 
On 23 July 2008, based on the recommendation of the applicant's acting commander (Captain (CPT) S__), Permanent Orders (PO) awarded the applicant the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service during the period 1 November 2007 to 27 July 2008. The commander specifically cited the applicant for his superior duty performance during the unit's preparation for annual training, and his successful completion of administrative requirements pertaining to the deployment of 76 Soldiers who had been mobilized in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

e. 
On 5 January 2009, the applicant was released from active duty (REFRAD) under other than honorable conditions. The applicant's separation packet is not available for review, but his available service records do include his DD Form 214, which shows his character of service and confirms he completed 2 years, 1 month, and 23 days of his FTNGD/AGR commitment, with lost time from 20081211 to 20090105 (. The applicant's DD Form 214 additionally reflects the separation authority as paragraph 14-12c (1) (Acts or Patterns of Misconduct – Commission of a Serious Offense – Returned to Military Control from AWOL Status), chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct) Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations); the separation code (SPD) was "JKD" and the narrative reason for separation was "Misconduct (AWOL)." He was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal and Army Service Ribbon. 

f. 
On 3 June 2009, the MOARNG REFRAD the applicant under honorable conditions (General), and transferred him to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete the remainder of his enlistment obligation. The applicant's National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows he completed 4 years, 1 month, and 20 days of MOARNG service, and he was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal, and Army Commendation Medal. The regulatory authority for separation was National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), paragraph 8-35j (Unsatisfactory Participation). 

g. 
On 29 January 2010, the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), requesting an honorable character of service. 


2 
(1) 
The applicant argued his separation was unjust in that he had been on sick leave after contracting pneumonia. As part of his evidence, the applicant provided an MOARNG letter, addressed to the applicant's U.S. Representative, which stated the following: 

(a) 
On 10 November 2008, the applicant called his work to say he was sick; on 11 November 2008, the applicant's physician diagnosed him with an illness and excused him from work until 14 November 2008, but the applicant failed to return to duty as instructed. On 17 November 2008, the applicant again went to his physician, who excused the applicant until 20 November 2008; on 20 November 2008, the applicant's physician reevaluated the applicant and extended his return to duty date until 26 November 2008. The applicant remained away from his place of duty until 6 December 2008, and, when he did come to work, he failed to account for his absence and did not provide a doctor's note. 

(b) 
On 6 December 2008, immediately upon his return to duty, the applicant was taken to a civilian hospital, where medical authority diagnosed him with an illness and released him; the hospital physicians instructed the applicant not to return to duty until 11 December 2008. On 11 December 2008, the applicant did not come to work, but he texted Sergeant First Class (SFC) H__ (the applicant's noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC)) stating he did not feel well, and he asked for an additional day off. On 12 December 2008, the applicant again texted SFC H__, indicating his doctor had excused him from work until 15 December 2008; the applicant did not submit a doctor's note. 

(c) 
On 12 December 2008, CPT S__, the battalion's officer in charge (OIC) for FTNGD Soldiers, decided to call the applicant's doctor. CPT S__ asked the doctor's nurse to send verification of the doctor's order excusing the applicant from work; the nurse failed to provide the excuse. CPT S__ then texted the applicant, ordering him to report to the armory by 15 December 2008 and added the applicant would be deemed AWOL if he did not appear. Although the applicant acknowledged CPT S__'s text, he did not show up as directed; as a result, CPT S__ reported the applicant as AWOL. The applicant remained absent, and provided no doctor's excuse, for the period 11 through 30 December 2008; however, the applicant did send a doctor's letter allowing him to remain absent from 31 December 2008 until 5 January 2009. On 5 January 2009, the applicant came to work and submitted his resignation from the AGR program, effective immediately; the applicant then left. That same day, the applicant's MOARNG unit forwarded his resignation to the MOARNG Human Resources office. 

(d) 
On two occasions, CPT S__ tried to conduct counseling sessions with the applicant, but the applicant did not show up. CPT S__ intended for the sessions to address such issues as: 

• 
The requirement for a military medical provider to assess the applicant's medical condition 

• 
The applicant's failure to comply with the foregoing requirement could result in removal from the AGR program, and 

• 
As the applicant's AGR supervisor, CPT S__ had the authority to charge the applicant's accrued leave account for the applicant's absences, should CPT  S__ determine the applicant had abused the sick leave policy 



(e) 
CPT S__ subsequently submitted a DA Form 31 (Request and Authority for Leave), charging the applicant's accrued leave account for the period 10 November until 5 December 2008; in addition, because the applicant had failed to provide a physician's note, CPT S__ charged the applicant with AWOL from 11 through 30 December 2008 (19 days). 

(2) 
On 24 February 2010, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) administratively closed the applicant's request, stating the applicant had provided no evidence that he had exhausted his administrative remedies by first seeking relief from the MOARNG. 

h. 
On 20 July 2010, the MOARNG issued the applicant a DD Form 215, showing the following corrections: 

. 
Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) – add Army Commendation Medal 

. 
Item 24 (Character of Service) – change from under other than honorable conditions to under honorable conditions (general) 

. 
Item 25 (Separation Authority) – change from AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c (1) to NGR (AR) 600-5 (AGR Program, Title 32, FTNGD), paragraph 6-3 (Voluntary Separation) 

. 
Item 26 (Separation Code) – change from "JKD" (Misconduct (AWOL)) to "MND" (Miscellaneous/General Reasons) 

. 
Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – change from "Misconduct (AWOL)" to "Misconduct (AWOL) Voluntary Resignation" 



i. 
On 21 July 2010, after receiving a letter from the applicant's U.S. Representative, the ADRB accepted the applicant's 29 January 2010 petition. 

(1) 
Through his U.S. Representative, the applicant submitted the following self-authored statement: 

(a) 
The applicant became his unit's Administrative Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) in November 2006; he soon discovered his predecessor had left everything in shambles. The applicant single-handedly worked to restore the unit's administration to a functional status; this meant staying late and working on weekends. 

(b) 
In January 2007, the applicant's unit received notice of its deployment to Iraq; the applicant asked for assistance from then-First Lieutenant (1LT) S__, but the 1LT did not help. Additionally, a troop commander told the applicant there were no funds available to bring on additional full-time staff, so the applicant had to run the entire unit by himself. 

(c) 
In October 2007, the applicant's doctor diagnosed him with pneumonia; despite not feeling well, the applicant returned to work, and, from 26 through 29 October 2007, the applicant accompanied the company commander to Atlanta, GA. On the applicant's return, he reported for duty at a Pre-Mobilization Station, where he underwent training from 0700 until 1630. After training, the applicant returned to his office to help 83 Soldiers prepare for deployment. The applicant ended up working from 1600 until 0245 with no assistance, and this continued for 3 weeks. Just 9 days before the applicant's unit was scheduled to mobilize, First Army changed the mobilization guidelines; the revised guidance required the applicant to re-do all of his unit's mobilization packets. The applicant again asked 1LT S__ for help, and again 1LT S__ did not come through. 

(d) 
On 15 November 2007, the applicant woke up feeling poorly; he got into the driver's seat of the duty van and, as he began to back up the van, he "felt this electricity in my head." The applicant put the van in park; SFC B__ came up and said, "Get him to the hospital. He is having a stroke or a heart attack!" Medical authority subsequently admitted the applicant into the hospital, and, later that day, a doctor said the applicant had had a stroke; if the applicant's blood pressure had not "evened-out," the applicant would have died. On 24 March 2008, the applicant returned to duty, but he continued to suffer from the stroke's residual effects. 

(e) 
In June, and again in August 2008, doctors again diagnosed the applicant with pneumonia. On 10 November 2008, the applicant called in to work to report he had a fever of 102 degrees; on 11 November 2008, his doctor diagnosed him with pneumonia for the fourth time that year. The doctor excused the applicant from work until 14 November 2008; he was unable to return to his doctor until 17 November 2008, but, at that time, the doctor said the applicant still had pneumonia. On 20 November 2008, the doctor again extended the applicant's return to duty date to 26 November 2008. 

(f) 
On 2 December 2008, the applicant's house caught fire; the applicant called his NCO to report what had happened, but his NCO directed him to return to work anyway. On 6 December 2008, the applicant reported for duty; when the unit's physician's assistant checked the applicant's temperature, it was 103 degrees, so they 


3 
4 
5 
rushed the applicant to the hospital, and doctors once more diagnosed the applicant with pneumonia. The doctors excused the applicant from work until 11 December 2008, with the stipulation that the applicant had to set up an appointment to see his primary care physician; on 12 December 2008, the applicant texted his NCOIC, stating the doctors had excused him from duty until 15 December 2008. On 15 December 2008, the applicant was ordered to report to his unit by 1000 hours, but there was a snowstorm and the roads were bad. CPT S__ then texted the applicant, asking for the applicant's whereabouts, and the applicant told him he was at his doctor's office, and that the doctor had been diagnosed him with pneumonia again. CPT S__ said the applicant was AWOL and would not receive pay for the second half of December. The applicant's doctor cleared him from working for the period 15 to 31 December 2008, then extended the period to 5 January 2009. On 5 January 2009, the applicant returned to work and submitted his resignation because he felt he was not getting any support from CPT S__ and the battalion. The applicant asserted CPT S__ had turned the applicant's absences into a personal and racial issue (the applicant is African American and CPT S__ is white). The applicant maintained a white female Soldier had also been absent, but the unit never made her use her leave, did not require her to provide doctor's statements, and no one ever counseled her.  
(g) 
The applicant described how the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) told him he owed $8,000 (plus interest); this was for a bonus he had received for his AGR service. Then, all of a sudden, they took his income taxes, despite the fact he was unable to work due to his medical condition. The applicant declared he had lost everything after he had prepared his unit for deployment with no assistance, became ill, and then received no support when he needed time to recover from pneumonia. 

(2) 
On 21 June 2011, the ADRB denied the applicant's upgrade request; the ADRB analyst noted the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's REFRAD were unavailable, but his DD Form 214 indicated he had been separated per paragraph 14-12c (1), AR 635-200. Barring evidence to the contrary, the ADRB analyst was satisfied all requirements of law and regulation had been met, and the rights of the applicant had been fully protected throughout the separation process; based on the foregoing, the ADRB presumed administrative regularity, and determined the applicant's REFRAD and character of service were proper and equitable. 

j. 
On 11 August 2011, the applicant applied for a personal appearance before the ADRB; on 5 September 2012, the ADRB administratively closed the applicant's request because he had failed to show for a 27 August 2012 personal appearance hearing. The ADRB advised the applicant he had exhausted his ADRB appeals and should send future requests to the ABCMR. 

k. 
On 17 April 2012, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command issued an order honorably discharging the applicant from the U.S. Army Reserve, effective 17 April 2012. 


6 
4. 
AR 15-185 (ABCMR), states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board; however, the request for a hearing may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of ABCMR. 

5. 
The applicant asserts the MOARNG unjustly separated him under other than honorable conditions, based on allegations of AWOL; in addition, in an earlier petition, the applicant contended the actions of his battalion's FTNGD OIC were racially motivated. The applicant pointed out, although the MOARNG had since corrected his DD Form 214 to show he voluntarily resigned, it did not upgrade his character of service to honorable. 


a. The absence of the applicant's separation packet means there is insufficient evidence to determine the specific circumstance(s) that led to his REFRAD. However, because his service records contain his DD Form 214, along with a DD Form 215, the Board can presume the applicant's leadership properly completed his REFRAD action. This presumption notwithstanding, the regulation governing the management of military personnel records (AR 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resources Records Management)) requires all supporting documents for an approved separation action to be maintained in the affected Soldier's official military personnel file (OMPF). In addition, the evidence of record indicates the following conflicting evidence: 
(1) 
The battalion's FTNGD OIC (CPT S__) reported the applicant as AWOL for the period 11 through 30 December 2008 (19 days). On 5 January 2009, the MOARNG REFRAD the applicant, per paragraph 14-12c (1) (Acts or Patterns of Misconduct – Commission of a Serious Offense – Returned to Military Control from AWOL Status), chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct), AR 635-200. 

(1) 
During the applicant's era of service, commanders could initiate separation action, under paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, against Soldiers who had committed serious offenses for which, according to the Manual for Courts-Martial, one of the maximum punishments included a punitive discharge. 

(2) 
The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2008 Edition), Appendix 12 (Maximum Punishment Chart) showed a punitive discharge was not an available punishment for violations of Article 86 (AWOL for more than 3, but not more than 30 days). 

b. 
On 20 July 2010, the MOARNG issued the applicant a DD Form 215, which amended his DD Form 214, ending 5 January 2009, as follows: 

. 
Upgraded the applicant's character of service to under honorable conditions (general) 

. 
Amended the separation authority to NGR (AR) 600-5 (The AGR Program Title 32, FTNGD), paragraph 6-3 (Voluntary Separation) 

. 
Revised the SPD to "MND," and 

. 
Changed the narrative reason for separation to "Misconduct (AWOL) Voluntary Resignation" 



(1) 
Paragraph 6-3, NGR (AR) 600-5 stated AGR Soldiers could request voluntary separation from the AGR program, and the regulation required the request to be routed through command channels to the SPMO (Support Personnel Management Officer); The Adjutant General for the respective State was the approval authority. An updated version of this regulation was issued in 2015; this version stated AGR Soldiers who REFRAD could not receive a character of service less than under honorable conditions (general). 

(2) 
AR 135-18 (The AGR Program), in effect at the time, stated the provisions of AR 135-178 were to be followed for all separations from the AGR program (whether voluntary or involuntary); the version of AR 135-178 that was effective when the applicant was separated did not include procedures for voluntary resignations. 

(3) 
AR 135-178 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve – Enlisted Administrative Separations) stated an honorable characterization of service was appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance expected of Army personnel. When separation authorities were deciding whether to grant an honorable character of service, the regulation stated they should consider the pattern of behavior, rather than an isolated instance, as the governing factor for determining character of service. In addition, Soldiers who awarded a personal decoration could receive an honorable characterization, if not otherwise ineligible (AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the Army Commendation Medal is a personal decoration). 

(4) 
AR 635-5-1 (SPD), then in effect, provided a listing of separation authorities, along with the associated SPD and narrative reasons for separation. The associated narrative reason for separation for "MND" was "Miscellaneous/General Reasons." The regulation also referred to a note, which stated DD Form 214 preparers could use the "MND" SPD for both voluntary and involuntary separations, and the regulation did not assign a specific regulation as the associated separation authority. The regulation did not state the phrase "MISCONDUCT (AWOL) VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION" was an authorized narrative reason for separation. 

c. 
Chapter 14 (Secretarial Plenary Authority), AR 135-178, then in effect, stated it was the Secretary of the Army's prerogative to apply Secretarial Plenary Authority as the basis for separation. In addition, the use of Secretarial Plenary Authority was to be exercised sparingly, on a case-by-case basis, and in situations where the separation was in the best interests of the Army and no other regulatory provision applied. 


7 
6. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his service record, and his evidence and statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. 
8 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
1. The applicant’s request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. 
In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 
2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. Board members noted that the applicant's separation packet is not available. This means the Board is unable to determine the specific circumstance(s) that led to his separation. However, because his service records contain his DD Form 214, along with a DD Form 215, the Board presumes the applicant's leadership properly completed his separation action. There is evidence that the applicant was AWOL from 11 to 30 December 2008 (19 days). He was separated for misconduct and received an under other than honorable conditions discharge. This was subsequently upgraded to Under Honorable Conditions (General). Based on a preponderance of evidence, Board members voted not to grant relief after finding no error or injustice. The Board did concur with the administrative notes below, and recommended the correction is completed to more accurately depict the military service of the applicant. 
9 
BOARD VOTE: 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
: : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 
: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
XX: XX: XX: DENY APPLICATION 
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 
Except for the correction addressed in Administrative Note(s) below, the Board found 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 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): 
1. 
AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, stated the DD Form 214 was to reflect awards and decorations for all periods of service. The applicant's NGB Form 22 indicates he was awarded the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal, but this award is missing from his DD Form 214. 

2. 
AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designators (SPD) lists the separation authorities, their associated SPDs, and the narrative reasons for separation for all active duty separations; the applicant's DD Form 215 (which corrected his DD Form 214, ending 5 January 2009) shows his SPD was changed to "MND," but the narrative reason for separation incorrectly states, "Misconduct (AWOL) Voluntary Resignation." The correct narrative reason is "Miscellaneous/General Reasons." 

3. 
As a result, amend the applicant's DD Form 214, ending 5 January 2009, by adding the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal, and, after deleting the amended entry in item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), replace the entry with, "Miscellaneous/General Reasons." 


REFERENCES: 
1. 
Title 10, USC, 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 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. 
AR 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 


a. 
Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge).  An honorable character of service represented a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service had generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. 

b. 
Paragraph 5-15 (Early Release of Reserve Component (RC) Personnel Serving AGR Tours under Title 10, USC, Section 12301 (d) (RC Generally – Authority to Order RC to Active Duty)). ARNG AGR Soldiers on active duty per Title 10, USC, Section 12301 (d) could be voluntarily released from active duty, at their request, for the convenience of the government; such requests had to be fully justified and determined to be in the best interest of the Army. 

c. 
Paragraph 14-12c (1) stated Soldiers who were AWOL and then returned to military control could be separated based on having committed a serious military offense. 


3. 
The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2008 Edition), Appendix 12 (Maximum Punishment Chart) showed a punitive discharge was not an available punishment for convictions of Article 86 (AWOL for more than 3, but not more than 30 days). 

4. 
NGR 600-5 (The Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Program, Title 32, FTNGD, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for the ARNG's AGR program under Title 32, FTNGD. Paragraph 6-3 (Voluntary Separation) stated Soldiers could request voluntary separation from the AGR program. The foregoing version of NGR 600-5 was superseded in 2015; this newer iteration stated, in chapter 6 (Release from FTNGD Title 

32 AGR Program), that REFRAD under this provision could not result in a character of service less than under honorable conditions, but commanders could initiate discharge from the ARNG as a separate action. 

5. 
AR 135-18 (The Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program), dated November 2004, stated all enlisted separations from the AGR program, whether voluntary or involuntary, were to be governed by AR 135-178. In October 2019, the Army released a revision of this regulation, in which it stated AGR Soldiers could voluntarily request early REFRAD; such releases needed to be consistent with the needs of the Service, as well as governing laws and regulations. In addition, approved requests for AGR status termination would normally result in a REFRAD for continued service in the U.S. Army Reserve. 

6. 
AR 135-178 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve – Enlisted Administrative Separations), in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for ARNG enlisted administrative separations. There are no provisions for voluntary resignations. 


a. 
Paragraph 2-9a (Honorable). An honorable characterization of service was appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance expected of Army personnel; when a Soldier was discharged prior to the expiration of his/her service obligation, separation authorities were to consider the seriousness and the extent of the Soldier's infractions of discipline. An honorable character of service could still be awarded when the Soldier's military record showed disqualifying entries were outweighed by subsequent honorable and faithful service; the pattern of behavior, not an isolated instance, was to be deemed the governing factor. In addition, a Soldier who had been awarded a personal decoration could also receive an honorable characterization. 

b. 
Chapter 6 (Convenience of the Government) stated the following served as reasons for separation under this chapter:  dependency or hardship, pregnancy, surviving sons or daughters, involuntary separation due to parenthood, not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards, and other designated physical or mental conditions. 

c. 
Chapter 14 (Secretarial Plenary Authority) stated separation under this chapter was the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army, was exercised sparingly, and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, this authority was used when no other provisions applied, and early separation was clearly in the Army's best interests. The character of service could either be honorable or under honorable conditions. 


7. 
AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards) defines "decoration" as a distinctively designed mark of honor denoting heroism or meritorious and/or outstanding service and/or 

achievement for individuals; individual U.S. Army decorations include the Army Commendation Medal. 

8. 
On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. 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, BCM/NRs 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. 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. 

9. 
AR 15-185 (ABCMR), states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board; however, the request for a hearing may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of ABCMR. Paragraph 2-9 of this regulation states the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which means the Board presumes what the Army did was correct. 


//NOTHING FOLLOWS//