IN THE CASE OF:  

BOARD DATE:  13 July 2022

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20210017015


APPLICANT’S REQUEST:  The applicant requests, in effect, the recharacterization of 
his service from uncharacterized to honorable.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge)
*	Requests for assistance to applicant's United States Representative and United 
States Senator
*	Two DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
*	Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of 
Claim)
*	Letter from applicant's clinical psychologist
*	Extract of applicant's military medical records

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed 
Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records:  
Claims Incident Thereto). 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 he was an honorable and upstanding Soldier assigned to Fort 
Benning, GA. He was military-ready when he enrolled into the U.S Army Reserve 
Delayed Entry Program (USAR DEP) and, because of this, he entered active duty 
automatically promoted to private (PV2)/E-2; his military occupational specialty (MOS) 
was "11-Mike" (11M (Fighting Vehicle Infantryman)). 

	a.  The applicant affirms his love for his country was one reason he joined the Army; 
however, his abusive first sergeant (1SG) caused the applicant's military career to be 
cut short. The applicant states he was young, and the 1SG belittled him in front of the 
applicant's peers during a "general assembly." 

	b.  At the assembly, with the applicant and his fellow recruits all seated at desks, the 
1SG delivered his speech from the stage; as he addressed the group, the 1SG picked 
out a few names to callout and humiliate, and one of those names was the applicant's. 

		(1)  The 1SG said, in front of everyone, "And [applicant] was a homeless piece of 
sh__ before he joined the largest 'gang' in the world," (referring to the U.S. Army). In 
response, the applicant stood up from his desk and said loudly, "With all due respect, 
1SG, I have NEVER been a homeless piece of sh__...."  The 1SG "exploded," and, 
shouting angrily and pointing at the applicant, he yelled, "Meet me in my office after 
general assembly."

		(2)  The applicant did as instructed and, upon the 1SG's arrival at his office, the 
applicant snapped to attention and held a salute; the 1SG irately told him to be at ease. 
The 1SG then leaned over into the applicant's face and, after slamming his hands on 
the desk, he asked, "You wanna hit me, boy? Hit me..."; then the 1SG aggressively 
grabbed the applicant's throat and private parts. The applicant hit him, and he did not 
stop; he grabbed the 1SG's tie and pulled the 1SG to him (the applicant noted that 
1SG's arms were "literally bigger than my head"). 

		(3)  The applicant was scared, and, recalling the 1SG's speech, the applicant 
declared he did not want the 1SG to "'break me down' and send me to the infirmary, as 
I was told I'm only a piece of property to the U.S. Army and I would not be able to do 
anything about it. I was told that, as a piece of property, 'the sergeants have a right to 
break every bone in your body.' Then they would ship you home, and you could not 
even sue them or have any recourse at all." Because of what they had told him, the 
applicant "went for broke, following his orders to hit him... it took many, many sergeants 
to pry my grip from his tie and to stop me from fighting for my life." The applicant 
maintains it took about seven drill instructors to place the applicant in an "all points of 
restraint hold"; holding the applicant suspended in the air, "like Superman in a flying-like 
position," an eighth drill sergeant had to come and cut off the 1SG's tie because the 
1SG was choking. 

		(4)  The 1SG ordered the applicant's bootlaces confiscated from him, and sent 
the applicant to see a psychologist, claiming the applicant had tried to kill him and was a 
threat to himself and others. The truth was, however, that the 1SG simply wanted the 
applicant jailed indefinitely, based on a psychiatric diagnosis, and that way he could 
make the applicant his toy. Nevertheless, when the applicant told the psychologist about 
the 1SG's humiliating words, his bullying, and the physical assault, and the applicant 
explained he was only following the 1SG's orders, the psychologist agreed the applicant 
should return to "full active duty status." 

		(5)  The applicant had not been with the psychologist for 10 minutes before the 
1SG sent another golf cart to pick up the applicant; needless-to-say, the 1SG was 
furious about the applicant's return to duty, so the 1SG called in a "personal favor" from 
the post commander, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) . On the applicant's arrival at LTC  
office, the LTC said, "Son, I know you're not stupid; you scored higher on your ASVAB 
(Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) than I did when I came in the military, so 
why did you do this?" After the applicant detailed what had occurred and added, "I was 
just following orders," the LTC laughed and said he and the 1SG had enlisted together 
and had been friends for over 20 years, and he said that the 1SG had called him from a 
meeting "to perform an emergency court-martial." 

		(6)  The LTC agreed with the applicant's reasoning and asked the applicant what 
he wanted him to do. The LTC said he could do three things:  "I can ELS (Entry-Level 
Separation) you out; court-martial you, like the 1SG wants; or I can deem you medically 
insane and you will get a check for the rest of your life, but you will not be able to own a 
firearm." In response, the applicant proposed a fourth option, which was to transfer him 
to another Army base. The applicant argued he had been an honorable Soldier, made 
high ranks, and had had no problems before the 1SG's attack, but the LTC rejected that 
alternative, saying, "If I do that, they (the drill sergeants) will 'smoke' you." The 
LTC went on to explain that, "by military standard, you are required to be able to do 
20 pushups upon command at any given time with only a 20-second rest recovery; they 
will smoke you 'til your arms are like spaghetti. Then you really will disobey a direct 
order, and then you really will go up for a court-martial for disobeying a direct order. It's 
a loop hole we use to get rid of Soldiers...." 

		(7)  The applicant then offered a fifth option, stating, "Well, you know I was 
homeless before, and I have 1 paycheck already. Would you let me stay in long enough 
to collect another check or two so that, at least when I leave, I will not have to go 
homeless again." LTC loved this idea and agreed; he allowed the applicant to remain on 
base and collect additional pay and allowances as long as the applicant did not speak to 
the 1SG.

	b.  The applicant contends that the 1SG should have contacted his lieutenant and 
followed the chain of command; instead, he assaulted the applicant, ruined his military 
career, and called in personal favors to cover up his actions. The applicant asserts the 
struggle with the 1SG injured the applicant physically, psychologically, and financially. 

3.  The applicant's service records show:

	a.  On 5 September 1995, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Army for 3 years; 
at the time he entered active duty, he held the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-1, and he 
was 18 years old. Orders transferred him to Fort Benning for one-station-unit-training 
(OSUT) for 11-series MOSs, and he arrived at his OSUT unit, on 13 September 1995.

	b.  On 13 September 1995, the applicant completed an FB Form 8 (Initial 
Counseling Support Form), in which the applicant provided background information and 
answered questions about his financial situation and whether he had any issues he 
wanted to discuss with his leadership. Under an item titled, "In your own words, write an 
autobiography about yourself." the applicant wrote, "Abusive parents, ran away, 
became homeless for 2 yrs. Father wanted by the Army. Joined for a future." 

	c.  On 16 September 1995, the applicant's noncommissioned officer (NCO), 
Sergeant First Class (SFC) counseled the applicant, using a DA Form 4856 (General 
Counseling Form). SFC wrote the applicant had failed his Army Physical Fitness Test 
(APFT) by only achieving a score of 110 points; to pass, Soldiers needed to score at 
least 60 points in each event and reach an overall score of 180 points, and continued 
failure could result in an entry-level separation. The applicant indicated he concurred 
with the counseling.

	d.  On 21 September 1995, SFC counseled the applicant for disrupting NBC 
(Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical) training and inappropriately addressing the NCO 
cadre by saying, "Yeah," instead of sergeant; the applicant concurred with the 
counseling. 

	e.  A DD Form 689 (Individual Sick Slip), dated 25 September 1995, shows the 
applicant saw a behavioral science NCO (Sergeant (SGT) entered the following 
comments in the form's remarks section, "RTU (return to unit), close supervision, health 
& welfare. F/U (follow-up) 28 September 95 at 1400. No weapon/ammo."

	f.  On 27 September 1995, First Lieutenant (1LT) Social Work Officer, rendered a 
DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation) pertaining to the applicant. 1LT 
reported the applicant met the medical retention standards, outlined in Army Regulation 
(AR) 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), and provided the following additional 
information:

		(1)  Under "Evaluation," 1LT indicated the following; the applicant's:

*	Behavior – Normal
*	Level of Alertness – Dull
*	Level of Orientation – Fully Oriented
*	Mood or Affect – Unremarkable
*	Thinking Process – Clear
*	Thought Content – Normal
*	Memory – Good 

		(2)  In Remarks, 1LT noted the applicant's command had referred the applicant 
to CMHS (Community Mental Health Services).

		(a)  1LT Axis I diagnosis was "Adjustment Disorder, unspecified." 

		(b)  Under "Findings," 1LT wrote, "The diagnosis, as shown above, represents an 
adjustment disorder within the meaning of AR 40-501, 
AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), and DSM IV (Diagnostic and 
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition). This condition and the problems 
presented by this individual are not, in the opinion of this examiner, amenable to 
hospitalization, treatment, disciplinary action, training, or reclassification to another type 
of duty within the military. It is unlikely that efforts to rehabilitate or develop this 
individual into a satisfactory member of the military will be successful. This individual is 
psychiatrically cleared for any administrative (or judicial) action deemed appropriate by 
command."

		(c)  1LT provided the following recommendations:  "This Soldier/trainee will most 
likely remain a constant potential accidental suicide/self-disabling or AWOL (absent 
without leave) risk, if made to continue to active duty. It is in the best interests of the 
individual and the U.S. Army for him to be expeditiously administratively separated from 
active duty. Moreover, the Soldier is likely to become/continue as a disruptive influence 
to unit morale and mission."

	g.  On or about 28 September 1995, the applicant's OSUT commander prepared a 
memorandum, in which he advised the applicant he was initiating separation action 
against him, under the provisions of paragraph 11-2 (Entry-Level Status Performance 
and Conduct – Basis for Separation), AR 635-200. The commander stated the reason 
was the applicant's adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and that the CMHS had 
recommended the applicant's expeditious separation; additionally, the applicant had 
expressed a desire for a discharge. The commander indicated he would recommend the 
applicant for an uncharacterized character of service, but the final decision rested with 
the separation authority.

	h.  On 29 September 1995, the applicant's 1SG counseled the applicant on a 
DA Form 4856.

		(1)  The 1SG advised the applicant that, because CMHS had recommended the 
applicant's separation, and the applicant had expressed a desire for discharge, the 1SG 
was recommending the commander initiate separation action against the applicant; the 
applicant indicated he concurred with the 1SG's counseling. 

		(2)  In Part V (Unit Commander Interview) of the form, the applicant's OSUT 
commander added the following comments:

		(a)  The applicant indicated he understood the commander was recommending 
him for an entry-level separation because of the CMHS evaluation. The applicant 
seemed distracted, at times, and the commander had to explain the applicant's rights 
several times to ensure the applicant grasp what the commander was telling him. The 
applicant also appeared to lose his concentration, and he "interspersed questions about 
my career with answer to questions confirming his personal data." The applicant gave 
the impression of being lucid, but his train of thought moved rapidly back and forth 
between subjects.

		(b)  The commander wrote that he strongly recommended the applicant's 
separation because the applicant's lack of concentration represented enough of a safety 
hazard that the commander had excluded the applicant from "BRM." 

	i.  On or about 29 September 1995, the applicant acknowledged his commander's 
proposed uncharacterized entry-level separation and affirmed he did not wish to make a 
statement or submit a rebuttal; in addition, he indicated that he did not desire to consult 
with military legal counsel. In the section normally completed by military legal counsel, 
the applicant's OSUT commander confirmed that, on 29 September 1995, he had 
advised the applicant of the basis for the contemplated separation and its effects, the 
rights available to the applicant, and the impact of waiving those rights. The commander 
declared the applicant had personally made the choices indicated above.  

	j.  On 2 October 1995, the separation authority (the applicant's OSUT battalion 
commander, LTC approved the commander's separation recommendation and directed 
the applicant's discharge, per chapter 11 (Entry-Level Status Performance and 
Conduct), AR 635-200. On 17 October 1995, orders discharged the applicant with an 
uncharacterized character of service. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 months 
and 13 days of his 3-year enlistment contract. 

4.  On 9 February, and again on 11 February 2022, the applicant requested the 
assistance of his U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative. The applicant asserted the 
Department of Defense (DOD)/Army had falsified his federally certified DD Form 214, 
and he wanted those responsible brought to justice for their continuing abuse of his 
person. 

	a.  The applicant argued it had been nearly 28 years and, due to the alleged cover-
up, he had never received a proper DD Form 214 or release from active duty. In support 
of his claims, the applicant cited "USC Part V (Sec. 3001, ET SEQ of Subtitle of 10, 
Publication L. 116-283, as enacted," and he declared his desire to have his honorable 
service reflected because "my incident was not of my doings." 

	b.  With his request, the applicant provided two DD Forms 214:  the "Service – 2" 
and "Veterans Administration – 3" copies; however, the applicant did not specify how 
DOD/Army had falsified the forms. The only observable difference between the two 
documents were the following:  the "Service – 2" lists the regulatory separation authority 
(AR 635-200, chapter 11), the separation code and the reentry code; in place of those 
entries, the "Veterans Administration – 3" copy states, "For DOD use only."

	c.  DOD Instruction 1336.1 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty 
(DD Form 214/5 Series)), in effect at the time, stated organizations/entities outside of 
DOD, such as the VA and Department of Labor, did not receive DD Forms 
214 reflecting the separating Soldier's regulatory separation authority, SPD, and RE 
code. Only the below-listed copies showed that information:

*	Number 2 (Service); 
*	Number 4 (Member); 
*	Number 7 (Reserve Component, in cases where the separating Soldier was 
released from active duty to continue service in the USAR or Army National 
Guard); and 
*	Number 8 (Separation Transfer Activity) 

5.  Accompanying his request to his U.S. Senator, the applicant submitted an extract of 
his military medical records, and a letter from a civilian clinical psychologist. The 
medical records describe routine medical care. The clinical psychologist reported that, 
in July 2021, the State's Vocational Rehabilitation Service referred the applicant for 
evaluation; the clinical psychologist diagnosed the applicant with post-traumatic stress 
disorder (PTSD); major depressive disorder, severe; psychotic disorder due to medical 
condition; learning disorder, not otherwise specified, processing speed; seizure 
disorder, epilepsy; and mild cerebral palsy. 

6.  Clemency guidance to the Boards for Correction of Military/Navy Records (BCM/NR) 
does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in 
application of their equitable relief authority to ensure each case will be assessed on its 
own merits. In determining whether to grant relief 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. This includes consideration of changes in policy, whereby a service 
member under the same circumstances today would reasonably be expected to receive 
a more favorable outcome. 

	a.  During the applicant's era of service, commanders could, per chapter 11, 
AR 635-200, initiate separation action against entry-level Soldiers who demonstrated 
they were not qualified for retention by not adapting socially or emotionally to military 
life, not meeting minimum standards for the successful completion of training, and/or not 
responding to counseling (as recorded on DA Forms 4856. 

		(1) Paragraph 11-4 (Counseling and Rehabilitation Requirements) stated it was 
essential to fulfill the regulation's counseling and rehabilitation requirements because 
military service was a calling different from any civilian occupation; commanders should 
not separate a Soldier, using entry level performance and conduct as the sole basis, 
unless efforts at rehabilitation had been made.

		(2) The regulation also required commander to use of the notification procedure 
when advising the Soldier of the contemplated separation action. The notification 
procedure involved the following:

*	Giving the Soldier a written notice of the proposed separation that specified 
the type of separation and the reason for the commander's action
*	Advising the Soldier of his or her rights, under the regulation's separation 
process, which included:  consulting with military counsel, submitting 
statements in his/her own behalf, receiving copies of documents sent to the 
separation authority, and waiving, in writing, the aforementioned rights
*	The Soldier was to indicate on an "Election of Rights" document whether 
he/she had consulted with counsel and was or was not submitting matters for 
the separation authority's consideration

	b.  Effective 1 October 1982, a revision of AR 635-200 mandated the issuance of 
uncharacterized characters of service to Soldiers separated while in an entry-level 
status; for Regular Army Soldiers, entry-level status began upon their entrance on 
active duty and ended after 180 days of continuous active duty. The regulation stated 
the Secretary of the Army could issue an honorable character of service, on a case-by-
case basis, when clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving 
personal conduct and performance of duty.

7.  Published guidance to the BCM/NRs clearly indicates that the guidance is not 
intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will 
determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it 
supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the 
applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the 
petition.  

8.  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) were not in use at the time of his service. A review of his hardcopy medical 
record indicates he was evaluated on 27 Sept 1995. He was diagnosed with Adjustment 
Disorder, unspecified. The provider determined he met retention standards IAW AR 40-
501 and due to his difficulty adjusting to basic training recommended administrative 
separation. A review of his service record indicates the applicant reported an abuse 
childhood causing him to run away from home and was homeless for 2 years prior to 
joining the Army. A note from his civilian provider dated 5 Jan 2022 indicate the 
applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Psychotic 
Disorder due to medical condition, and Learning Disorder, not otherwise specified. A 
review of JLV indicates the applicant has a service connected disability rating of 70% for 
PTSD effective 10 Aug 2021. In accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Secretary of Defense 
Liberal Guidance Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017, Clarifying Guidance there is 
documentation to support a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder at the time of his 
discharge. The applicant’s characterization of service is due to his length of service not 
any misconduct. No change to his characterization of service is warranted.  
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 the medical review, the Board concurred with the advisory official finding 
the applicant’s characterization of service is due to his length of service not any 
misconduct. Soldiers in the USAR and ARNG are authorized and honorable discharge 
while in entry-level status only if they complete their active-duty schooling and earn their 
MOS.  Upon review of the applicant’s petition and available military records, the Board 
determined the applicant did not complete training and was released from active duty 
for reason of entry level performance and conduct. Based upon a preponderance of 
evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received 
upon separation was not in error or unjust. As a result, there is no basis for granting the 
applicant's request.

2.  An uncharacterized discharge is not derogatory; it is recorded when a Soldier has 
not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to initiation 
of separation.  It merely means the Soldier has not served on active duty long enough 
for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise.  



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, USC, 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.  Title 10, United State Code, section 1556 provides the Secretary of the Army shall 
ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency 
(ARBA) is provided a copy of all correspondence and communications, including 
summaries of verbal communications, with any agencies or persons external to agency 
or board, or a member of the staff of the agency or Board, that directly pertains to or 
has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute.

3.  AR 635-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for the 
administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge) stated an honorable discharge was a 
separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality 
of the Soldier's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and duty 
performance.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army 
under honorable conditions. The regulation authorized separation authorities to issue a 
general discharge to Soldiers whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently 
meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

	c.  Paragraph 3-9 (Uncharacterized Separations). Effective 1 October 1982, a 
revision of AR 635-200 mandated the issuance of uncharacterized characters of service 
to Soldiers separated while in an entry-level status; for Regular Army Soldiers, entry-
level status began upon their entrance on active duty and ended after 180 days of 
continuous active duty. The regulation stated the Secretary of the Army could issue an 
honorable character of service, on a case-by-case basis, when clearly warranted by the 
presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of 
duty.

	d.  Chapter 11 (Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct). This provision 
permitted commanders initiate separation action against entry level Soldiers who 
demonstrated they were not qualified for retention based on not adapting socially or 
emotionally to military life, not meeting minimum standards prescribed for successful 
completion of training, and/or not responding to counseling (as recorded on DA Forms 
4856 (General Counseling Form).

		(1)  Paragraph 11-4 (Counseling and Rehabilitation Requirements) stated it was 
essential to fulfill the regulation's counseling and rehabilitation requirements because 
military service was a calling different from any civilian occupation; commanders should 
not separate a Soldier, using entry level performance and conduct as the sole basis, 
unless efforts at rehabilitation had been made.

		(2)  The regulation also stipulated commander's use of the notification procedure 
when advising the Soldier of the contemplated separation action. The notification 
procedure involved the following:

*	Giving the Soldier a written notice of the proposed separation that specified 
the type of separation and the reason for the commander's action
*	Advising the Soldier of his or her rights, under the regulation's separation 
process, which included:  consulting with military counsel, submitting 
statements in his/her own behalf, receiving copies of documents sent to the 
separation authority, and waiving, in writing, the aforementioned rights
*	The Soldier was to indicate on an "Election of Rights" document whether that 
Soldier had consulted with counsel and was or was not submitting matters on 
his/her own behalf

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; 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 DRBs and 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//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20210017015


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1