IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 18 April 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220009600


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of her request for upgrade of her under 
other than honorable condition (UOTHC) discharge, and an appearance before the 
Board via video/telephone.

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

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Personal statement 
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
*	College Diploma
*	Professional training certificates (seven)
*	Veterans Association Membership Certificate
*	Two Letters of Support 

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 AR20040006848 on 28 June 2005.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  She believes her discharge was inequitable, improper, unjust, and inappropriate. 
She served 99% of her military time and country with honor and faithfulness; with only 
one single offense in all those years. She was granted several decorations, badges, 
etc., which she wore and continues to talk about proudly. She believes that if she had 
the same resources available to her in 1990 that are available to Soldiers now, she 
would not be seeking this upgrade and may even still be in the Army serving proudly. 
She currently knows the Department of Defense is finally recognizing that many 
veterans (to include herself) have discharges that do not truly reflect their entire careers.

	b.  She did not have a court-martial, meaning she never had her day in court and 
never got due process. This discharge continues to carry negative consequences and 
stigma to this day. At the time of her one offense, she was a single mother in the Army 
as a Military Police, raising her daughter with no private or military support. There would 
be days when she would share her military meals with her daughter and borrow money 
from who she could trust to buy food and milk for her daughter. When she would bring 
this up to her company commander she was told either that the military pays her well or 
if the military wanted her to have a child, they would have issued her one. During this 
time, she was not aware of any policies in place to address this type of harassment or 
discrimination. Nor did she know that she could have applied for outside private 
assistance such as food stamps.

	c.  When she was made treasurer for the military club with the responsibility of 
depositing monthly dues this seemed like a godsend. With a daughter only one and a 
half years old and no other support, she started taking just enough money out of the 
account to make ends meet. She would always return it as soon as she got paid. She is 
not sure how many times she did this, but she does know it was less than five times. 
She could not just stand by and watch her child not eat and have clothes to wear 
because of their circumstances.

	d.  She regrets what she did because one of her goals in the military was to become 
a command sergeant major in the military police company. She partly blames the Army, 
because in 1990 there were just no avenues that were spoken about for Soldiers to turn 
to and after the comments by her company commander, she knew she had no other 
choice. She was just trying to protect her daughter, knowing, and hoping all along that 
the military would see what was happening to them. She believes she followed the 
"chain of command" when she alerted her company commander about her 
circumstances but was left feeling discouraged and disappointed. She thought the Army 
would take care of them, instead it discharged her with an UOTHC and reduced her to 
E-1 after her hard work to make E-6. She does not regret her years in the Army and 
believe it has made her the survivor she is today.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 January 1981. She completed 
training with award of military occupational specialty 95B (Military Police). 

4.  She had immediate reenlistments on 20 January 1984 and 27 November 1989. The 
highest rank/grade she held was staff sergeant/E-6.

5.  Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 19 September 1989 
for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Her DD Form 458 (Charge 
Sheet) shows she was charged with:

*	seven specifications of theft of cash from the Noncommissioned Officers 
Association between 21 May 1990 and 31 May 1990
*	one specification of failing to pay just debt in the amount of $500.00 for 
educational books, which became due on or about 28 September 1989.
6.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel on 24 September 1990 and was advised 
of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial; the maximum permissible 
punishment authorized under the UCMJ; the possible effects of an under other than 
honorable conditions discharge; and the procedures and rights that were available to 
him. 

	a.  After receiving legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under 
the provision of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted 
Personnel), Chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial. In 
her request for discharge, she acknowledged her understanding that by requesting 
discharge, she was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or of a lesser included 
offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. 
She stated that under no circumstances do she desire further rehabilitation, for she had 
no desire to perform further military service. She further acknowledged she understood 
that if her discharge request was approved she could be deprived of many or all Army 
benefits, she could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department 
of Veterans Affairs, and she could be deprived of her rights and benefits as a Veteran 
under both Federal and State laws.

	b.  She was advised she could submit statements in her own behalf; however, she 
elected not to.

5.  The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge in lieu of 
court-martial on 28 September 1990. He directed that the applicant be reduced to the 
lowest enlisted grade with her service characterized as UOTHC.

6.  The applicant was discharged on 5 October 1990 in grade of E-1. Her DD Form 214 
shows she was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, for the 
good of the service – in lieu of court martial and her service was characterized as 
UOTHC (Separation Code KFS, and Reentry Code 3). She was credited with 9 years, 8 
month, and 16 days of net active service. Her awards are listed as the:

*	Army Commendation Medal
*	Army Achievement Medal
*	Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd award)
*	Army Service Ribbon
*	Noncommissioned Officers Development Ribbon with numeral 1
*	Overseas Service Ribbon
*	Expert Qualification Badge with Rifle (M-16) and Pistol (.38 caliber) Bar

8.  The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant's request for a 
discharge upgrade. On 9 January 1997, the ADRB determined she was properly and 
equitably discharged and denied her request for discharge upgrade.
9.  On 28 June 2005, the ABCMR considered the applicant's petition for upgrade of her 
UOTHC discharge. The Board denied her request, indicating the applicant had not 
presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would 
be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested.

10.  The applicant provides:

	a.  Her college diploma and professional training certificates.

	b.  Letters of Support that describe her as a person who cared more about her 
troops than herself. She never hesitated to help in a time of crisis. Her exceptional 
leadership both inspired and motivated those who served alongside and under her. She 
was a role mode and a great inspiration especially to her fellow female Soldiers as the 
standard by which they measured themselves. In the civilian world, she has continued 
to be an excellent leader and mentor. She is someone you can always count on.

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

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and 
equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to 
serve the interest of equity and justice in this case.

2.  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 charged with commission of an 
offense (theft and failure to pay debt) punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive 
discharge. After being charged, he consulted with counsel and requested discharge 
under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10. Such discharges are voluntary 
requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and result in an under other than 
honorable conditions discharge. She provided her college diploma and professional 
training certificates, together with letters of support that describe her as a person whose 
exceptional leadership both inspired and motivated those who served alongside and 
under her, and that she was a role mode and a great inspiration especially to her fellow 
female Soldiers as the standard by which they measured themselves. The Board 
determined that her post discharge achievement do not outweigh the serious 
misconduct (seven specifications of theft of cash and one specification of failing to pay 
just debt) for which she was separated. 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, the Board did determine that because she 
reenlisted, her continuous honorable service should be listed. 

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 that the evidence presented was 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 to 
the Remarks Bloc of her DD Form 214 the entries: 

*	SOLDIER HAS COMPLETED FIRST FULL TERM OF SERVICE
*	CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 810120 UNTIL 891126

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 her 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.  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 if the decision has not previously 
been reconsidered. The applicant must provide new evidence or argument that was not 
considered at the time of the ABCMR's prior consideration. Additionally, the ABCMR 
may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. 
Additionally, applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The 
Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires.

2.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel. The version in effect at that 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.  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. A characterization of under 
honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation 
specifically allows such characterization.

	c.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had 
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 in 
lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges 
had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt. Although 
an honorable or general discharge was authorized, an under other than honorable 
conditions discharge was normally considered appropriate. ==== At the time of the 
applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable 
discharge certificate.

3.  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/NR) on 25 July 2018, 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 court-martial forum. However, the 
guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also 
applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be 
warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. 

	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.)	AR20220009600


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1