IN THE CASE OF:   

BOARD DATE:  13 April 2022

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20210013870


APPLICANT REQUESTS: 

*	Upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge
*	Correction of her last name from “” to her maiden name
*	To appear in person before the Board in Washington, DC at her own expense 

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 10 June 2021

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 (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, she would like to have her discharge upgraded and 
her last name changed to her maiden name on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty).  She was coerced as a young Soldier and placed in a 
situation that involved her married platoon sergeant and her.  The applicant indicated on 
her DD Form 149 that her current last name is “.”

3.  The applicant’s records show:

     a.  On 6 August 1982, she enlisted in the United States Army Reserve Delayed Entry 
Program using the last name “.”

     b.  On 3 November 1982, she enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years 
using the last name “.”

	c.  After completion of advanced individual training at Fort Gordon, Georgia, she was 
transferred to a unit located in Germany.
	d.  A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 8 May 1984, shows the applicant’s 
company commander recommended approval of her request to change her last name in 
all official records from “” to “” as result of her marriage on 27 April 
1984.  The commander verified he had seen the original certificate of marriage and the 
name there agreed with the name on this request.

     e.  On 17 September 1985, the applicant reenlisted for a period of 4 years using the 
last name “.”

     f.  On 19 February 1987, the applicant accepted company grade nonjudicial 
punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ) for violating Article 107, UCMJ, on or about 3 February 1987, by with 
intent to deceive, altering an official document (DD Form 689 (Individual Sick Slip)).

     g.  On 19 February 1987, the applicant accepted company grade NJP under the 
provisions of Article 15, UCMJ for violating Article 134, UCMJ, on or about 
12 September 1987 by as the driver of a vehicle at the time said vehicle was involved in 
an accident, wrongfully leaving the scene of the accident.

     h.  On 19 December 1988, her duty status was changed from present for duty (PDY) 
to Absent Without Leave (AWOL).

	i.  On 17 January 1989, her duty status was changed from AWOL to Dropped from 
Rolls (DFR), she was declared a deserter and her commander informed law 
enforcement agencies.

	j.  On 26 April 2002, the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities and was 
returned to military control.

   k.  On 30 April 2002, the applicant rendered a Servicemembers’ Group Life 
Insurance Election and Certificate wherein she hand-wrote and signed her last name as 
“.”
   
   l.  On 1 May 2002, court-martial charges were preferred against her for violation of 
the UCMJ, Article 86, by without authority, absenting herself from her organization on or 
about 19 December 1988 and remaining so absent until on or about 26 April 2002.
   
   m.  On 1 May 2002, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the 
service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 
(Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10.  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 AR 635-200, 
Chapter 10.  She signed a request for discharge for the good of the service and 
indicated she would not submit statements in her own behalf.  Her last name is shown 
as “” on this document. 

	n.  Her immediate commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for 
a Chapter 10 discharge with a service characterization of UOTHC.

	o.  On 12 June 2002, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request with 
issuance of an UOTHC discharge and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.

     p.  Her DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows her last name 
was initially entered as “r” and subsequently lined through and entered as “.”

     q.  Orders dated 28 June 2002, assigned her to the U.S. Army Transition Point, Fort 
Knox, Kentucky, effective 8 July 2002 for separation processing.  Her last name 
appears as “” on these orders.

	r.  On 8 July 2002, she was discharged accordingly.  Her DD Form 214 shows she 
was discharged from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
Chapter 10 (In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial) with an UOTHC characterization of 
service.  She completed 6 years, 1 month and 20 days of net active service during this 
period including lost time from 19 December 1988 – 25 April 2002 (total of 4,876 days).  
She was credited with continuous honorable service from 3 November 1982 – 16 
September 1985 and awarded or authorized the Army Good Conduct Medal, Army 
Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon and M16 Rifle Sharpshooter Badge.

4.  The applicant’s record does not contain and she does not provide documentation showing her 
last name was legally changed from her married name of “” back to her maiden name of “” or that 
she was subjected to sexual assault or harassment at any time during her period of service.

5.  In an attempt to verify the applicant’s contention that she was the victim of sexual 
assault and/or sexual harassment, the ABCMR asked the United States Army Criminal 
Investigation Division (USACID) to query their database for any information pertaining to 
the applicant.  In response to this request, on 4 February 2022, the USACID provided 
Reports of Investigations showing:

     a.  The applicant was charged with violation of Article 134, UCMJ for fleeing the 
scene of a traffic accident on 12 September 1987.

     b.  At the time the applicant went AWOL, she was pending disciplinary action for:

*	committing fraud in order to receive quarters and subsistence allowances 
by falsifying an official government document
*	committing fraud in order to change her last name from her married name 
to her maiden name by falsifying an official government document
*	larceny
*	forgery
*	desertion was added to the charges following her duty status being 
changed from AWOL to DFR

6.  On 8 February 2022, the ABCMR provided the applicant a copy of the USACID 
correspondence and placed processing her case on hold for 15 days to allow her an 
opportunity to submit comments on the information provided by the USACID.  To date, 
the applicant has not provided a response.

7.  The applicant states she would like to have her discharge upgraded because she 
was coerced as a young Soldier and placed in a situation that involved her married 
platoon sergeant and her.

     a.  Her record shows she departed her organization without authority and remained 
absent until she was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control 
4,876 days later.  As a result, charges were preferred against her, and after consulting 
with counsel, she voluntarily requested she be discharged in-lieu of trial by court martial.  

      b.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides that separation under the provisions of 
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 service characterization 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, they have been 
awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the particular circumstances of a 
specific case.

     c.  The Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
provides guidance that Boards are to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning 
for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on mental 
health conditions, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 
sexual harassment and sexual assault.  The veteran’s testimony alone, oral or written, 
may establish the existence of a condition or experience, that the condition or 
experience existed during or was aggravated by military service, and that the condition 
or experience excuses or mitigates the discharge.

     d.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, her 
service record, and her statements in light of the published guidance on equity, 
injustice, or clemency.

8.  With regard to the applicant's requests to correct her last name, a review of the 
applicant's service records shows the following:

     a.  The applicant indicated on her DD Form 149 that her current last name is “.”

     b.  The only documents found that listed the applicant's maiden name as her last 
name were dated prior to her marriage on 27 April 1984.  She subsequently requested 
and received approval for her last name to be officially changed to “” and that 
is the name that appears on every document subsequent to her request.  The Board 
normally only corrects documents that are accessible to individuals and entities other 
than the individual Soldier (i.e. forms such as the DD Form 214).  Based on the fact the 
applicant's DD Form 214 correctly states her legal last name as “” at the time 
of her separation, no records correction is necessary.

	c.  The Board has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records; for historical 
purposes, the data and information contained in those records should reflect the 
conditions and circumstances, as they existed at the time of the records' creation.  The 
Board advises the applicant that the Army Review Boards Agency will file a copy of this 
decisional document in her official military personnel file, and this file copy should serve 
to clarify any questions or confusion about the difference between the last name listed 
in her service records, her maiden name and the last name she currently uses.

     d.  In regards to the applicant's request for a personal appearance, Army Regulation 
15-185 (ABCMR), states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board; 
however, the Board or the Director of ABCMR may authorize a personal appearance. 

9.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting 
documents and the applicant’s military service records. The Armed Forces Health 
Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) & Health Artifacts Image Solutions 
(HAIMS) was not in use at the time of her service. Her hardcopy military medical record 
was not available for review. The applicant checked the block for sexual 
assault/harassment as a condition related to her request. She stated she was coerced 
as a young soldier and placed in situations that involved her married platoon sergeant. 
A review of the CID report dated 30 Sept 1988 indicates the applicant was pending 
court martial for larceny (12,265.78), forgery, and fraud against the United States when 
she went AWOL. She requested and received BAQ, OHA, and Separate rations as part 
of a request to live off-post.  She was not entitled to these benefits because she was no 
longer married. She forged military orders in the name of her soldier ex-husband along 
with the fraudulent request. She went AWOL on 19 Dec 1988 until 26 Apr 2002. A 
review of JLV indicates the applicant has not been evaluated or treated in the VA 
system. She does not have a service-connected disability rating. In accordance with the 
3 Sep 2014 Secretary of Defense Liberal Guidance Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017, 
Clarifying Guidance there is no documentation to support a behavioral health diagnosis 
at the time of her discharge. There is no documented psychiatric condition to consider 
with respect to mitigation of the misconduct that led to her discharge. 
    a.  Kurta Questions
(1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate 
the discharge?	
      (a) No
(2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service?   
      (a) N/A
(3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge?
      (a) N/A
(4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge?
      (a) N/A

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the 
relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of 
service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive 
and standard review based on law, policy and regulation, and published Department of 
Defense guidance for liberal and clemency determinations requests for upgrade of her 
characterization of service.  Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military 
records and medical review, the Board concurred with the advisory official finding no 
documentation to support a behavioral health diagnosis at the time of her discharge. 
There is no documented psychiatric condition to consider with respect to mitigation of 
the misconduct that led to her discharge. The Board noted, the applicant provided 
insufficient evidence of post-service honorable conduct that might have mitigated the 
discharge characterization for a clemency determination. The Board determined the 
applicant’s service record exhibits numerous instances of misconduct during her 
enlistment period. The Board agreed that the applicant’s discharge characterization 
reflected on her DD Form 214 was appropriate.

2.  The Board determined the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence 
of a probable error or injustice.  The applicant was still married and used the contested 
last name during her entire period of service.  The Board determined the overall merits 
of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual 
concerned. 

2.  The Army has an interest in maintaining the integrity of its records for historical 
purposes.  The information in those records must reflect the conditions and 
circumstances that existed at the time the records were created.  In the absence of 
evidence that shows a material error or injustice, there is a reluctance to recommend 
that those records be changed.

3.  The applicant is advised that a copy of this decisional document, along with his 
application and the supporting evidence he provided, will be filed in her official military 
records.  This should serve to clarify any questions or confusion regarding the 
difference in the last name recorded in her military records and to satisfy her desire to 
have her legal last name documented in her military records. Based on this the Board 
determined relief was not warranted and denied relief.

4.  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.


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:

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, 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 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 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for 
correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
ABCMR.  The ABCMR has the discretion to hold a hearing; applicants do not have a 
right to appear personally before the Board.  The Director or the ABCMR may grant 
formal hearings whenever justice requires.

3.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the 
separation of enlisted personnel, it states:

	a.  A Chapter 10 (Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court Martial) is applicable to 
members who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized 
punishment included a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could submit a request 
for discharge for the good of the service. The request could be submitted at any time 
after the charges had been preferred. Although an honorable or general discharge was 
authorized, an under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally 
considered appropriate.

	b.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable 
characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally 
met standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. 

	c.  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.

4.  On 25 August 2017 the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs 
and BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their 
discharges due in whole or in part to:  mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; 
sexual assault; or sexual harassment.  Standards for review should rightly consider the 
unique nature of these cases and afford each veteran a reasonable opportunity for relief 
even if the sexual assault or sexual harassment was unreported, or the mental health 
condition was not diagnosed until years later.  Boards are to give liberal consideration to 
Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole 
or in part on those conditions or experiences.  The guidance further describes evidence 
sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences 
presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge.

5.  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.
6.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations - Separation Documents), in effect at 
the time of the applicant's separation from active duty, prescribed the separation 
documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, released from 
active-duty service, or control of the Active Army.  It also established standardized 
policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.

	a.  Chapter 2 contains guidance on the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It states 
that the source documents for entering information on the DD Form 214 will be the 
Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), Officer Record Brief (ORB), enlistment/ reenlistment 
documents, personnel finance records, discharge documents, separation orders, or any 
other document authorized for filing in the Official Military Personnel File.  It shows for:

          (1)  item 1, enter name in all capital letters; include "JR," "SR," or "II", if 
appropriate.  Compare the ERB/ORB to contract for possible name change; and

		(2)  item 18, when a DD Form 214 is administratively issued or reissued, enter 
"DD Form 214 ADMINISTRATIVELY ISSUED/REISSUED ON (date)."  However, do not 
make this entry if the appellate authority; Executive Order; or Headquarters, Department 
of the Army, directs otherwise.

	b.  On direction of the ABCMR or Army Discharge Review Board, or in other 
instances when appropriate, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Army Review 
Boards Agency, is authorized to issue or reissue a DD Form 214.  Once a DD Form 214 
has been issued, it will not be reissued except under specified circumstances including 
when it is determined that the original DD Form 214 cannot be properly corrected by 
issuance of a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214).

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//