IN THE CASE OF:   

BOARD DATE:  7 September 2022

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20220001195


APPLICANT’S REQUEST:  The applicant requests the upgrade of his under other than 
honorable conditions discharge to an honorable character of service.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)

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 is asking the Board for this upgrade, due to the 
circumstances surrounding his separation and his age while on active duty; he entered 
the Army to comply with his parents’ wishes, but because he was a “1970s teenager,” 
he was rebellious. He tried the Army, but the Army discharged him when he was 
19-years-old. Now, as he looks back on that time, he feels he can credit his short stint in 
the military with a number of things that he learned and has come to value. The 
applicant just wishes that waiting to join would have been an option for him, and he 
regrets the way things turned out; if he could go back and do things differently, he 
would. As he has grown older, he has come to realize the importance of having an 
honorable discharge; he only recently learned from a Veterans Service Officer that he 
could apply for an upgrade.

3.  The applicant’s service records show:

	a.  On 22 March 1977, after obtaining his parents’ permission, the applicant enlisted 
into the Regular Army for 3 years; he was 17-years-old. Upon completion of initial entry 
training and the award of military occupational specialty (MOS) 62M (Rough Terrain 
Forklift and Loader Operator), orders assigned him to an engineer battalion at Fort 
Riley, KS, and he arrived at his unit, on 12 August 1977. Effective 1 February 1978, the 
applicant’s leadership promoted him to private first class (PFC)/E-3.
	b.  On 1 August 1978, the applicant’s unit reported him as absent without leave 
(AWOL) and, on 30 August 1978, dropped him from unit rolls. On 29 September 1978, 
the applicant surrendered himself to military authority at Fort Knox, KY, and orders 
subsequently reassigned him to the U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility (PCF) at Fort 
Knox.

	c.  On 3 October 1978, the PCF preferred court-martial charges against the 
applicant for having been AWOL from 1 August until 29 September 1978 (59 days). On 
4 October 1978, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested 
discharge under chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), 
AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). 

		(1)  In his request, the applicant affirmed no one subjected him to coercion and 
his counsel had advised him of the implications of his request; he further acknowledged 
he was guilty of the charge. 

		(2)  The applicant indicated he was submitting a statement in his own behalf, and 
he provided the following:  The applicant affirmed he was 18-years-old, and he had 
completed the 10th grade. He joined the Army to get away from his parents and to be 
on his own. He requested his MOS of 62M, but he asked now to be discharged because 
he did not like the Army and he no longer felt he would be useful as a Soldier. 

		(3)  After completing his separation request, the applicant departed Fort Knox on 
indefinite excess leave. 

	d.  On 24 October 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation 
request and directed his under other than honorable conditions discharge; in addition, 
the separation authority ordered the applicant's reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. 
On 22 November 1978, orders discharged the applicant accordingly. The applicant’s 
DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he completed 1 year, 
6 months, and 3 days of his 3-year enlistment contract. He was awarded or authorized 
two marksmanship qualification badges.  

4.  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, Soldiers charged with Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ) violations, for which a punitive discharge was a punishment, 
could request separation under chapter 10, AR 635-200. Such requests were voluntary 
and offered in-lieu of trial by court-martial.

	b.  The Manual for Courts-Martial, in effect at the time, showed UCMJ Article 
86 (AWOL for more than 30 days) included a punitive discharge.

5.  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.  


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 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 and available military 
records the Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors to 
overcome the misconduct. The applicant no provided post-service character letters of 
support 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 and denied relief. 





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.  AR 635-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for enlisted 
administrative separations.

	a.  Paragraph 1-13a (Honorable Discharge). An honorable discharge was a 
separation with honor; commanders issued an honorable discharge certificate based on 
the Soldier's proper military behavior and proficient duty performance. Commanders 
were to give due consideration to the Soldier's age, length of service, and general 
aptitude. Where there were infractions of discipline, commanders were to assess the 
extent of those infractions as well as the seriousness of the offenses.

	b.  Paragraph 1-13b (General Discharge). A general discharge was a separation 
from the Army under honorable conditions, where the Soldier's military record was not 
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

	c.  Chapter 10 permitted a Soldier to request discharge for the good of the service 
when they had committed an offense or offenses which, under the UCMJ and the 
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States 1969 (Revised Edition), included a bad 
conduct or dishonorable discharge as a punishment. The Soldier could submit such a 
request at any time after court-martial charges were preferred. Commanders were to 
ensure the request for discharge was a personal decision, free of coercion, and that the 
Soldier was given a reasonable amount of time to consult with counsel. Once the 
Soldier made the decision to request discharge, he/she had to put it in writing and 
counsel was required to sign as a witness. Once approved, an under other than 
honorable conditions character of service was normally furnished, but the discharge 
authority could direct either an honorable or general discharge, if warranted.

3.  The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States 1969 (Revised Edition), Table of 
Maximum Punishments showed Article 86 (AWOL for more than 30 days), UCMJ, 
included a punitive discharge.

4.  AR 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), in effect at the time, 
prescribed policies and procedures for enlisted promotions and reductions. Paragraph 
7-64c (Approved for Discharge from Service Under Other than Honorable Conditions) 
stated commanders were to reduce Soldiers discharged under other than honorable 
conditions to the lowest enlisted grade.

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//