IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 11 April 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220008451


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) 
discharge.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 2 June 2022
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) ending on 
6 May 1986
*	DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the U.S. Report of Transfer or Discharge) ending 
on 10 April 1971

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. 
Code, 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 at the time of his discharge, he was told that after six months 
his general discharge would be automatically changed to honorable.

3.  Having previous service in the Army National Guard, the applicant enlisted in the 
Regular Army on 26 March 1979. He reenlisted on 6 December 1982. The highest 
grade he attained was E-5.

4.  On or about 31 January 1986, the applicant tested positive during a urinalysis test.

5. On 5 March 1986, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation. He was 
psychiatrically cleared to understand and participate in board proceedings deemed 
appropriate by the command.

6.  On 6 March 1986, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for wrongfully using marijuana between on or 
about 31 December 1985 to on or about 31 January 1986. His punishment included 
reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $480 pay for two months, 45 days restriction, and extra 
duty.

7.  The applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant on 14 April 1986, that 
he was initiating actions to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 14-12c, for commission of a 
serious offense. His commander noted that he was a first-time offender of illegal drugs.

8.  On 15 April 1986, the applicant consulted with counsel and was advised of the basis 
for the contemplated separation action, the possible effects of the discharge, and the 
rights available to him. He indicated he understood he could expect to encounter 
substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions 
were issued to him and he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under 
Federal and State laws as a result. He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

9.  The applicant's immediate commander formally recommended his separation under 
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, based on misconduct - first 
time offender of illegal drugs.

10.  By legal review on 17 April 1986, the applicant’s Chapter 14 separation action was 
found to be legally sufficient for further processing.

11.  Consistent with the chain of command's recommendation, the separation authority 
approved the separation recommendation on 22 April 1986, with the issuance of a 
General Discharge Certificate.

12.  The applicant was discharged on 6 May 1986. His DD Form 214 confirms he was 
discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for 
misconduct - commission of a serious offense. His service was characterized as under 
honorable conditions (general). He completed 7 years, 1 month, and 11 days of net 
active service this period. He was awarded or authorized the:

*	Army Service Ribbon
*	Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award)
*	Overseas Service Ribbon
*	Expert Badge (Rifle M-16)

13.  The applicant's DD Form 214 does not show his continuous honorable active 
service period information that is required for members who honorably served their first 
term of enlistment [see Administrative Notes].

14.  There is not now nor has there ever been any provision in law or regulation that 
allowed for an automatic upgrade of any less than honorable discharge based solely on 
a period of lapsed time post-service. The myth of an automatic upgrade for any less 
than fully honorable discharges is based on the regulations that precluded an applicant 
from applying for a discharge review for a given period post discharge. 

15.  Published guidance to the Boards for Correction of Military/Navy Records 
(BCM/NR) 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, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within 
the military record, the Board found that relief was partially 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 for misconduct - commission 
of a serious offense (use of illegal drugs). His service was characterized as under 
honorable conditions (general). He completed 7 years, 1 month, and 11 days of net 
active service this period. 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. However, because the 
applicant’s first period of enlistment was honorable, the Board determined his DD Form 
214 should show his continuous honorable active service period information that is 
required for members who honorably served their first term of enlistment.

?
BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:X	:X	:X	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	:	:	DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a 
recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all 
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adding the 
following additional statements to block 18 (Remarks) of his DD Form 214: “Continuous 
honorable active service from 26 March 1979 to 5 December 1982” and “Soldier has 
Completed First Full Term of service.” 

2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a 
portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of 
the application that pertains to upgrading the characterization of his discharge.
	 
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, U.S. 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 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) provides: for 
Soldiers who have previously reenlisted without being issued a DD Form 214 and are 
separated with any characterization of service except "Honorable, enter Continuous 
Honorable Active Service From" (first day of service for which DD Form 214 was not 
issued) until (date before commencement of current enlistment). Then, enter the 
specific periods of reenlistment as prescribed above.

3.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel.

	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.  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. 

	c.  Chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct) established policy and prescribed 
procedures for separating members for misconduct. It states that action will be initiated 
to separate a Soldier for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation 
was impracticable or unlikely to succeed. Paragraph 14-12c (Commission of a Serious 
Offense) applied to commission of a serious military or civil offense, if the specific 
circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would 
be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense. First time offenders below the 
grade of sergeant, and with less than 3 years of total military service, may be processed 
for separation as appropriate.

4.  On 25?July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards 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)	AR20220008451


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1