ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
IN THE CASE OF:    BOARD DATE: 7 April 2021 DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20210005158 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests an upgrade of her general discharge, under honorable conditions to fully honorable service. 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
. DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) 
. Applicant’s Statement 
. Background Verification Check 
. Applicant’s Project Managers Statement 
. Army Discharge Review Board’s (ADRB) Case Report and Directive 
FACTS: 
1. 
The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 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 the ADRB previously determined that "exceptional family issues impaired her ability to serve," on 2 March 2015.  Her hardship at the time consisted of 


dependency of her little brother and sister, due to her father’s death after basic training, 
and her mother's admittance into a mental institution the following year. The prognosis for her schizophrenia was she would probably never return to care for her siblings, and she never did. This was not a temporary situation that would resolve itself. They were suddenly without parents. There aren't enough to describe the shame and guilt she feels every day for having gone absent without leave (AWOL), but she did not have a choice at the time. Her siblings were without anyone to care for them and she was too far away to help them. 
3. The applicant provides: 
a. A statement indicating, she felt it was important to mention her current employment status.  She has worked as an on-call data collector and field interviewer for Mathematica Policy Research since February 2019. She is incredibly passionate about the work they do on behalf of the Administration for Children and Families. Additionally, she states: 
(1) 
She underwent a background check, was interviewed by a Federal Agent, and obtained the necessary clearance for her position. During her interview with the Federal Agent and on all of the employment application paperwork, her character of [service] kept coming up over and over again. She explained the circumstances surrounding her general discharge to everyone who needed to know. It was and continues to be an incredibly painful memory for her because she still continues to be the primary caregiver for her mother. 

(2) 
She carries a tremendous amount of guilt and shame for the actions she took in going AWOL. She does not regret helping her family, she just wishes she could have stayed in the Army. She hopes that one day she may be able to feel pride in having served honorably instead of shame and guilt for having left. 

b. 
A letter from Mathematica Progress Together, showing she underwent a background verification check, on 28 April 2019. 

c. 
A letter from the Administration for Children and Families, written by the project manager, certifying that Mathematica has a cost-reimbursement contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families to conduct a study entitled "Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) 2019." 


4. 
On 23 July 1998, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 4 years.  She held military occupational specialty (MOS) 31F (Network Switching Systems Operator-Maintainer). The highest rank she achieved was private first class/E-3. 

5. 
On 17 September 1999, she was assigned to Fort Hood, TX.  On 19 January 2000, she left her unit in an AWOL status, and on 18 February 2000, she was dropped from Army rolls.  On 7 May 2000, she surrendered to military control and she was assigned to the Personnel Control Facility Fort Knox, KY. 

6. 
A Charge Sheet, dated 12 May 2000, shows she was charged with the above offense. 

7. 
On 12 May 2000, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). She consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the trial by court-martial, her available rights, and the basis for voluntarily requesting discharge under the provision of 


Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. She signed a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and: 
a. She declined to submit statements in her own behalf. 
b. She acknowledged she understood there was no automatic upgrading nor review by any government agency of a less than honorable discharge and that she must apply to the ADRB or the ABCMR if she wished a review of his discharge.  Additionally, she acknowledged that she realizes the act of consideration by either board did not imply that her discharge would be upgraded. 
8. 
On 11 June 2001, the Commander, U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility, recommended the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. 

9. 
On 16 July 2001, the appropriate authority directed the applicant’s reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, approved her request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, and directed the issuance of an Under Other than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. 

10. 
On 14 August 2001, she was discharged accordingly.  Her DD Form 214 shows she completed 2 years, 9 months, and 3 days of total active service with no foreign service.  Her authorized awards are listed as the Army Service Ribbon, Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16), and Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Hand Grenade Bar. The DD Form 214 also shows in: 


. Remarks, “Service characterization upgraded on 20150227 per ADRB 
Proceedings AR20140002131 following application dated 20140122.” . Character of Service, “General, Under Honorable Conditions” . Separation Authority, AR 635-200, Chapter 10 . Narrative Reason for Separation, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial . Dates of Time Lost During This Period, “20000119-20000506” 
11. 
On 27 February 2015, the ADRB determined the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh based on the circumstances surrounding the AWOL (i.e., exceptional family issues impaired ability to serve). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 

12. 
AR 635-200 states a Chapter 10 is a voluntary discharge request in-lieu of trial by court martial.  In doing so, she would have waived her opportunity to appear before a court-martial and risk a felony conviction.  An UOTHC discharge is authorized and 

normally considered appropriate; however, a member may be awarded an honorable or general discharge, if during the current enlistment period of obligated service, she has been awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the particular circumstances of a specific case. 

13. 
The applicant provides an ADRB Decision showing her discharge was upgraded to general, under honorable conditions, on 27 February 2015; a statement describing the reason for her AWOL period; a background verification check, and a statement from her project manager describing that organization. 

14. 
She argues that after basic training she experienced family problems.  Her father died and her mother was admitted to a mental intuition for schizophrenia with a prognosis that she would probably never return to care for her two younger siblings. Her siblings were left with no one to care for them.  She feels shame and guilt every day for having gone AWOL, but she did not have a choice at the time. 

15. 
In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, claims, submissions, and service record, in light of the published Department of Defense guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. 


BOARD DISCUSSION: 
After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, her record of service, and nature of her misconduct and the reason for her separation. The Board considered the previous upgrade of her discharge to under honorable conditions (general) by the Army Discharge Review Board. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigation to overcome the misconduct. The Board considered the applicant's statement regarding post-service employment, but found insufficient supporting documents or letters of reference to support a clemency determination. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization is warranted as she did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel to receive an Honorable discharge; her separation as currently characterized is not in error or unjust. 
BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING XXXX XX DENY APPLICATION 
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 
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. 
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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (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 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. 


a. 
Chapter 10 stated a member who was charged with an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, an UOTHC discharge was normally issued to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. 

b. 
An honorable discharge was 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 generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct 
and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would have been clearly inappropriate. 
c. 
A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 

d. 
An UOTHC discharge is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct. In a case in which an UOTHC discharge is authorized by regulation, a member may be awarded an honorable or general discharge, if during the current enlistment period of obligated service, he has been awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the particular circumstances of a specific case. 


3. 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. 
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, 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. 

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//