IN THE CASE OF:  

BOARD DATE:  19 May 2021

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20210006371


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

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the 
United States), dated 25 June 2020

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, in effect, states:

	a.  At the time of his discharge, he had well over 30 letters of retention rendered by 
his chain of command.  Although he was punished by the Korean authorities for an 
accident that occurred in the Republic of Korea, General Sxxxxxxxx pushed for action 
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that resulted in his general discharge 
under honorable conditions.  This general discharge is double punishment.  He has 
learned to live with a discharge under such conditions but is still a proud member of the 
United States Armed Forces and he cannot help but feel the slight embarrassment of 
such a discharge.  

     b.  He served proudly and did all he could for not only his benefit but for the benefit 
of his brothers and sisters in uniform.  Though this discharge is no cause for 
embarrassment because it was under honorable conditions, he personally feels in his 
heart that he needs a fully honorable discharge to help with his self-esteem and his 
treatments.  He is proud to let anyone know he served as a light infantryman in the U.S. 
Army.  He feels a fully honorable discharge will complete the circle and complete him as 
a man.  This is something he has wanted for many years but just did not have the 
resources or knowledge.  Now he is doing all he can to get his discharge upgraded to a 
fully honorable discharge.

     c.  He is currently enrolled as a resident at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
campus in Albuquerque, New Mexico; he wants and needs to go back to school.  He is 
seeking financial aid from the GI Bill but to further the process, he has been advised 
that he must have a fully honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 January 1994.  He reenlisted in the 
Regular Army on 9 October 1996.

4.  The applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant on 22 April 1998 that he 
was initiating actions to separate him from service under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-5, by 
reason of misconduct – conviction by civil court.  The commander cited the specific 
reason as the applicant’s conviction by a civil court for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) 
and Vehicular Hit and Run Resulting in Injury.  The commander also advised the 
applicant of his rights pertaining to the separation action.  The applicant acknowledged 
receipt of the notification on 22 April 1998.

5.  The applicant consulted with counsel on 22 April 1998 and was advised of the basis 
for the contemplated action to separate him and of the rights available to him.  He 
accepted his right to be represented by military counsel and requested consideration of 
his case by an administrative separation board and personal appearance before the 
board if his service was characterized no less favorably than honorable.  He also 
elected to provide statements in his own behalf.  The applicant also acknowledged his 
understanding that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a 
general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him.  He further 
understood that with a discharge which is less than honorable, he may make application 
to the Army Discharge Review Board or the ABCMR for upgrading, however, he 
realized that an act of consideration b either board does not imply his discharge would 
be upgraded.

6.  The applicant's immediate commander formally recommended the applicant's 
separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-5.  He cited 
the specific factual reason for the recommended action as: "IAW (In accordance with) 
EUSA (Eighth United States Army) Policy Letter Number 10, paragraph 2b, the 
Commanding General disapproved my request for retention, therefore, I must initiate 
separation action."  Although they are not included with the applicant’s separation 
packet filed in his official record, the commander indicated four memoranda and a letter 
were included with his separation packet.

7.  The applicant’s battalion and brigade level commanders each recommended him for 
separation and that his service be characterized as general, under honorable 
conditions.  The separation authority, Major General (MG) Sxxxxxxxx, approved the 
applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,  
paragraph 14-5, and directed the applicant be separated with a general, under 
honorable conditions discharge.  MG Sxxxxxxxx disapproved a request to suspend the 
applicant’s approved separation on 11 May 1998.

8.  The applicant was discharged on 13 May 1998.  His DD Form 214 shows he was 
discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, by reason of 
misconduct, and his service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general).

9.  Although the applicant states he had well over 30 letters of retention rendered by his 
chain of command, his record is void and he has not provided copies of the letters to 
which he referred.  

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

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, his 
record of service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct, the reason for his 
separation and whether to apply clemency.  The applicant provided no evidence of post-
service achievements or letters of support to weigh a clemency determination.  The 
Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigation to overcome the misconduct.  
He was discharged for misconduct and was provided an under honorable conditions 
(General) characterization of service.  The Board agreed that the applicant's discharge 
characterization is warranted as he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct 
and performance of duty for Army personnel to receive an Honorable discharge.




BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

XXX	XXX	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.
 

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 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 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel.  The version in effect at the time provided that:

	a.  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.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  
When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not 
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

	c.  Chapter 14, in effect at the time, established policy and prescribed procedures for 
separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories included minor disciplinary 
infractions (a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary 
infractions), a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or 
military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline), commission of a 
serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  Action would be taken to separate 
a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was 
impracticable or was unlikely to succeed.  A discharge UOTHC was normally 
appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation 
authority could direct a general discharge if such was merited by the Soldier’s overall 
record.

3.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to 
Service Discharge Review Boards and Service 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//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20210006371

3

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20210006371


5
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20210006371


4