IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  6 July 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20220011537


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of 
his under honorable conditions (general) discharge to an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:  
DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge)

FACTS:  

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the 
previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of 
Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20140019713 on 30 June 2015. 

2.  As a new argument the applicant states, his release was an injustice and other 
methods should have been used. He needs an upgrade so he can continue his college 
studies. 

3.  On 1 February 1989, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a 4-year service 
obligation. Upon completion of military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer) 
training and airborne training, he was assigned to Fort Bragg, NC.

4.  On 15 August 1989, the applicant underwent a mental status examination. The 
supporting documentation shows he had no significant mental illness and had the 
mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. 

5.  The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of 
Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on the following occasions:  

*	25 August 1989, for wrongfully possessing an undetermined amount of cocaine 
on or about 9 August 1989; his punishment included forfeiture of half one 
month’s pay for two months, 45 days extra duty, and 45 days restriction
*	7 September 1989, for failing to go to his appoint place of duty at the time 
prescribed, and four specifications of breaking previously placed restriction, on or 
about 1, 2, 3 and 4 September 1989; his punishment included reduction to E-1, 
and 30 days confinement (suspended for 30 days)
6.  On 7 September 1989, the applicant's commander notified the applicant of his intent 
to initiate actions to separate him from service under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for serious 
misconduct. The commander cited the specific reasons as the applicant's possession of 
cocaine and a positive urinalysis on 9 August 1989. He indicated he was recommending 
a general discharge. 

7.  The applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged receipt of the commander's 
notification memorandum on the same day. On 12 September 1989, he was advised of 
the basis for the proposed separation action, his available rights, and the effects of 
waiving those rights. He waived his rights and elected to not submit a statement in his 
own behalf.

8.  Subsequently, the applicant's commander formally recommended his separation, 
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, by reason of serious 
misconduct. The commander noted no other grounds or dispositions appeared 
appropriate. The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of his 
separation. 

9.  On 14 September 1989, the Staff Judge Advocate found the recommended 
separation legally sufficient. Subsequently, and consistent with the chain of command's 
recommendations, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed 
the issuance of an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. 

10.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 25 September 1989. His 
DD Form 214 is not available for review; however, he was issued a Certification of 
Service. Additionally, his records indicate he was discharged under the provisions Army 
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, by reason of misconduct. His service was 
characterized as under honorable conditions (general). He was credited with 7 months 
and 25 days of net active service this period.

11.  On 22 February 1990, he was issued a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) 
correcting his Separation Code to read JKQ [misconduct – commission of a serious 
offense].

12.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition, 
arguments and assertions, and service record in accordance with the published equity, 
injustice, or clemency guidance. 

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 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 was discharged from active 
duty due to misconduct – commission of a serious offense. The character of service for 
such discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions. The applicant 
received a general discharge. Also, the applicant provided no evidence of post-service 
achievements or letters of reference in support of 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.

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Dockets Number 
AR20140019713 on 30 June 2015. 

	 
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.  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.  Chapter 14 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating 
members for misconduct. Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a 
pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, 
desertion, or absences without leave. Action would be taken to separate a member for 
misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was 
unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) was 
normally considered appropriate. However, the separation authority could direct a 
general discharge if such was merited by the Soldier's overall record. 

2.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) sets forth procedures for processing requests for 
the correction of military records. Paragraph 2-15a governs requests for 
reconsideration. This provision of the regulation allows an applicant to request 
reconsideration of an earlier decision of the ABCMR. The applicant must provide new 
relevant evidence or argument that was not considered at the time of the ABCMR's prior 
consideration.

3.  On 25?July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards (DRB) and Service Boards for 
Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR) 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, 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)	AR20220011537


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1