IN THE CASE OF:  

BOARD DATE:  6 April 2022

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20210010377


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable 
discharge.  

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) 

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:

	a.  He would like to have his discharge upgraded to where he could buy a few acres 
of land at his old age with maybe the Government’s help.  He would have stayed in the 
Army but as soon as he got to, on the Buddy System with WGL they got split up.  
Colonel  needed a typist for the Battalion Newspaper and he took the applicant out of 
the motor pool.     

	b.  He went in the Buddy System for a reason.  They left the other Buddy System 
Soldier in the motor pool and within six (6) months he was psychiatrically deemed crazy 
and was discharged.  What happened to his Buddy System?  The end of 1972 and start 
of 1973 was when there was a huge heroin war and operation going on throughout Fort 
Hood.  He knew of several people killed over it in the 1st Cavalry Barracks where he 
lived.  He felt overwhelming tension there and peer pressure to join their ranks.  He 
hated heroin and in no shape, way, or form would he participate in its distribution and 
destruction of humans.  He went absent without leave (AWOL) because of it.  He feared 
bodily harm.  Everyone is probably dead now but there are millions of firsthand 
accounts of body bags coming back to the United States of dead Soldiers killed with 
“China White.”
	c.  It was a bad time for our country and especially the Army.  When the Army split 
him from his Buddy he enlisted with, he felt that they did not care about him at all.  
When the Army discharged him, he really felt alone and betrayed.  He put himself on 
levy to Germany twice and was turned down.  Stuck in a very caustic environment in the 
1st Cavalry, 81st Armored heroin traffic was the last straw.  Thanks for listening to him.           

3.  On 3 May 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  
He was assigned to Fort Hood, TX on or about 2 August 1972.      

4.  The applicant’s record contains an Enlisted Qualification Record that shows he was 
AWOL from on or about 9 to 17 January 1973.

5.  On 23 January 1973, a DA Form 2627-2 (Record of Appellate of Other 
Supplementary Actions Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) 
shows the applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of 
Article 15, UCMJ.  On 5 March 1973, the suspension of the punishments of reduction to 
private (E-1) and forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 1 month were vacated.

6.  His record also contains multiple documents that show from on or about:     

*	5 to 18 February 1973, he was AWOL 
*	2 to 5 March 1973, the applicant was AWOL
*	16 March to 8 June 1973, he was AWOL 

7.  A Disposition Form dated 26 June 1973 shows the applicant’s commander 
requested a record of his previous convictions because the applicant was pending 
elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel 
Separations – Enlisted Personnel).  

8.  Enlisted Qualification Records and Reports for Suspension of Favorable Personnel 
Actions from the applicant’s record shows:  
 
*	2 to 8 July 1973, he was AWOL
*	9 to 27 July 1973, the applicant was in pre-trial confinement 
*	he was pending trial by court-martial
9.  A Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions and a Report of Result of 
Trial dated 10 September 1973 shows the applicant was tried and convicted by a 
Special Court-Martial for being AWOL from on or about 16 March to 5 June 1973.  He 
was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 2 months and to forfeit $150.00 per 
month for 2 months.  He was also assigned to the Army Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley, 
KS.      
10.  A Disposition Form dated 1 October 1973 shows the applicant was recommended 
for discharge under the provisions of Chapter 13 (Unsuitable), AR 635-200, for 
character and behavior disorder.

11.  On 4 October 1973, he was medically cleared for separation action.

12.  The applicant’s record contains multiple documents that show he was AWOL again 
from on or about 9 October to 1973 to 20 February 1974 and 19 March to 15 April 1974.
He escaped from military confinement on 9 October 1973, and was apprehended by 
civilian authorities on or about 20 February 1974 and returned to military control.

13.  A Commander’s Inquiry dated 13 February 1974 states, in pertinent part, there was 
no evidence or indication of foul play, but there was a record of mental instability which 
may be the cause of the applicant’s absence.  

14.  On 27 February 1974, the applicant was medically cleared for administrative 
separation action.  

15.  On 10 April 1974, Special Orders directed the applicant be reassigned on 15 April 
1974 to the Adjutant General Transfer Point, Fort Hood, TX for separation under the 
provisions of paragraph 10-1, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by 
court-martial. 

16.  Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood issued Special Orders Number 72 
discharging the applicant under the provisions of paragraph 10-1, AR 635-200, for the 
good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, effective 15 April 1974.  The type of 
discharge was listed as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) and he was 
issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

17.  The applicant’s record did not contain a complete discharge packet; nevertheless, 
his record contained a DD Form 214 discharging him on 15 April 1974, under the 
provisions of paragraph 10-1, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by 
court-martial.  His character of service was listed as UOTHC and he was issued an 
Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant completed 1 year and 2 months of net 
active service this period with 287 days of lost time.

18.  In connection with such a discharge, the applicant would have been charged with 
the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. 
Procedurally, the applicant would have been required to consult with defense counsel, 
and to voluntarily, and in writing, request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by 
court-martial. In doing so, the applicant would have been required to admit guilt to the 
stipulated offense(s) under the UCMJ. The request for discharge would have then been 
referred through command channels to the officer exercising discharge authority who 
would have directed the characterization of discharge. Upon approval, the applicant 
would have been administratively discharged without referral to trial.

19.  Army Regulation 15–185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes 
the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the 
Army, acting through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  In 
pertinent part, it states that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the 
presumption of administrative regularity.  The ABCMR will decide cases based on the 
evidence of record.  It is not an investigative agency. 

20.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth 
the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the version in 
effect at the time provided that a member who 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 at any time after court-martial charges were 
preferred.  Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into 
submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service.  Consulting counsel 
would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, 
type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of 
Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because 
of the characterization of such a discharge.  An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would 
normally be furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service.

21.  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; 
traumatic brain injury (TBI); sexual assault; or sexual harassment.  Boards are to give 
liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for 
relief is based in whole or in part to 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.       

22.  The ABCMR is not authorized to grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for 
the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans' benefits; however, in reaching 
its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, service record, and 
statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency.    

23.  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 his service. His hardcopy military medical record 
was not available for review. A review of his service record indicates a commander’s 
inquiry report dated 13 Feb 1974 noted “there is a record of mental instability which may 
be the cause of the absence.” However, the applicant completed a separation physical 
on 27 Feb 1974 which indicated normal psychiatric functioning and his PULHES were 
all 1’s indicating he met retention standards. The applicant references being 
overwhelmed and pressured by the “heroin war” and pressure to join the heroin 
trafficking group at Ft Hood. He did not assert any behavioral health diagnoses as 
mitigating and provided no medical treatment records for review. A review of JLV 
indicates the applicant has not been evaluated or treated in the VA system. He 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 his 
discharge. There is no documented psychiatric condition to consider with respect to 
mitigation. In addition, there is no information regarding the misconduct that resulted in 
his 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 that 
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 his 
characterization of service.  Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military 
records and medical review, the Board concurred with the advising official finding no 
documented psychiatric condition to consider with respect to mitigation. In addition, 
there is no information regarding the misconduct that resulted in his discharge. 
2.  The Board determined the applicant provided insufficient evidence of post-service 
achievements or character letters of support to show honorable conduct that might have 
mitigated the discharge characterization.  The Board found insufficient evidence of in-
service mitigating factors for the misconduct to weigh a clemency determination.  Based 
on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the 
applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. Therefore, relief was 
denied.


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.


ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):  N/A


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 15–185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes 
the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the 
Army, acting through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  In 
pertinent part, it states that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the 
presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an 
error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.  The ABCMR will decide cases 
based on the evidence of record.  It is not an investigative agency.  

3.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth 
the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the version in 
effect at the time provided that a member who 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 at any time after court-martial charges were 
preferred.  Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into 
submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service.  Consulting counsel 
would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, 
type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of 
Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because 
of the characterization of such a discharge.  An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would 
normally be furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service.     

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; 
traumatic brain injury (TBI); sexual assault; or sexual harassment.  Boards are to give 
liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for 
relief is based in whole or in part to 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. 
 
     a.  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.
  
     b.  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.  

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20210010377


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1