IN THE CASE OF:  

BOARD DATE:  22 February 2022

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20210010234


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) 
discharge be upgraded to either an under honorable conditions (general) discharge or 
an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 
10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), dated 24 May 2021

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 states, in effect, he was lied to by his recruiting officer and enlisted for 
six years.  He wanted to serve his country but not in a military occupational specialty 
(MOS) that would become irrelevant.  He went through the proper chain of command to 
change his MOS upon completion of Basic Combat Training (BCT), but to no avail.  He 
was advised on a hotline to go absent without leave (AWOL), a second time after 
receiving nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (UCMJ), in order to be discharged.  He regrets this decision and takes 
responsibility for his actions.  It has been almost 20 years since his discharge.  He loves 
his country and abides by its laws.  He is a good citizen and has engaged in no activity 
to tarnish that standing with his government and the law.  He wants to serve his nation’s 
government by applying for a City, State or Federal position.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 June 2000.  His enlistment 
documents show he agreed to serve on active duty in MOS 31F (Network Switchboard 
System Operator) for a period of six years, in return for a $10,000.00 incentive bonus.

4.  DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) show the applicant’s duty status was changed as 
indicated on the dates shown:

*	From Present for Duty (PDY) to AWOL on 25 October 2000
*	From AWOL to Dropped From the Rolls (DFR) on 24 November 2000
*	From DFR to PDY Returned to Military Control (RMC) after being apprehended 
by civil authorities in San Antonio, Texas on 14 April 2001

5.  A DD Form 616 (Report of Return of Absentee), dated 23 April 2001, shows the 
applicant surrendered to military authorities and apprehension efforts were terminated.

6.  Upon his RMC the applicant was interviewed in order to ascertain why he went 
AWOL.  He stated he wanted to be discharged because he was lied to about his MOS 
and the Army was not for him.  He also stated he talked with a Chaplain, his 
Commander, his First Sergeant and Drill Sergeants about his problem prior to going 
AWOL and there was nothing the Army could have done to prevent him from going 
AWOL.  When asked whether he wanted to stay in the Army or get out he stated he 
wanted to get out.

7.  Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 24 April 2001, for 
violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ.  His DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows he was 
charged with without authority, absenting himself from his organization on or about 
25 October 2000 and remaining so absent until on or about 14 April 2001.

8.  The applicant consulted with counsel on 27 April 2001 and was advised of the basis 
for the contemplated trial by court-martial; the maximum permissible punishment 
authorized under the UCMJ; the possible effects of a UOTHC discharge; and the 
procedures and rights that were available to him.

	a.  Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested 
discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), 
Chapter 10, for the good of the service.  In his request for discharge, he acknowledged 
his understanding that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge 
against him, or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad 
conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He further acknowledged he understood that if his 
discharge request was approved he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he 
could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, 
and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and 
State laws.

	b.  He acknowledged he could submit statements in his own behalf, but elected not 
to do so.

9.  The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge, under the 
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, and 
directed his reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and the issuance of a UOTHC 
discharge.
10.  The applicant was discharged on 4 February 2002.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms he was discharged in the lowest 
enlisted grade, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of 
trial by court-martial, and his service was characterized as UOTHC. He completed 1 
year, 2 months, and 10 days of active service, with lost time from 25 October 2000 to 13 
April 2001 and excess leave from 27 April 2001 to 4 February 2002.  He did not 
complete his first full term of service. 

11.  The applicant was charged due to the commission of an offense punishable under 
the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  Subsequent to being charged, he consulted with 
counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
Chapter 10.  Such discharges are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by 
court-martial.

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

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within 
the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully 
considered the applicants request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and 
published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The 
Board considered the applicant's statement, the applicant's record of service, the 
frequency and nature of the applicant's misconduct and the reason for separation. The 
applicant provided insufficient evidence of post-service achievements in support of a 
clemency determination. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, 
the Board found that relief was not warranted based upon guidance for consideration of 
discharge upgrade requests.



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:

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 10 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had 
committed 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, a UOTHC discharge was normally 
considered appropriate.

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)	AR20210010234

4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

1