IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  25 April 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20220009726


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  An upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions 
(UOTHC) discharge to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. 

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

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), with self-authored 
statement
*	Service Record (35 Pages)
*	Education Records
*	Civilian Medical Records (33 Pages)

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, in effect, while playing basketball he cracked his left ankle and 
was held over to recover from the injury before going on to advanced individual training 
(AIT). His drill sergeant used his influence as a leader to befriend him and introduce him 
to drugs and alcohol. He later became hooked on drugs provided by his drill sergeant, 
which eventually led to alcohol and drug abuse. Once arriving to AIT, he kept going 
absent without leave (AWOL) in search of drugs and eventually ended up at Fort 
Devens, MA, where he continued to go AWOL. His father turned him in a couple of 
times. His chain of command did not realize he needed help, they let him fall through 
the cracks, and receive an UOTHC discharge. In 1986, he got help to kick the habit of 
drugs and alcohol. He has been clean for 34 years and turned his life around. After 
receiving a bachelor's degree in Early Childhood Development, he went to work for 
Service Employees International Union, and retired from the union in 2013. 

3.  The applicant's service record shows:  

   a.  On 25 September 1968, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a 3-year 
service obligation. The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he 
was assigned to basic training at Fort Jackson, SC on 2 October 1968. He was 
transferred to an AIT training brigade on 9 December 1968, there is no indication he 
was held over for an ankle injury. 

   b.  On 23 January 1969, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP), 
under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for 
striking his superior noncommissioned officer, on or about 22 January 1969. His 
punishment included 14 days extra duty and forfeiture or $20 pay for two months.

   c.  After several periods of being recycled in AIT, the applicant completed training 
and was awarded military occupational specialty 76A (Supply Clerk), He was reported 
AWOL from the U.S. Army Overseas Replacement Station, Oakland, CA, on 30 August 
1969. 

   d.  The applicant accepted NJP, under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on 
the following occasions: 

*	24 October 1969, for being AWOL from on or about 30 August 1969 until on 
or about 19 September 1969; his punishment included reduction to E-2
*	18 February 1970, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the time 
prescribed on or about 14 February 1970
*	29 April 1970, for being AWOL from on or about 5 April 1970 to on or about 
7 April 1970
*	13 May 1970, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the time 
prescribed on or about 8 May 1970; punishment included reduction to E-2
*	26 May 1970, for two specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of 
duty at the time prescribed on or about 18 May 1970 and 19 May 1970
*	9 June 1970, for disobeying a lawful order on or about 28 May 1970
*	22 June 1970, for three specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of 
duty at the time prescribed on or about 11 June, 18 June, and 19 June 1970; 
his punishment included reduction to E-1

   e.  On 9 May 1972, the applicant underwent a separation examination. The 
supporting documentation shows he noted he was in good health and his previous 
complaints included a head injury, asthma, jaundice or hepatitis, and a previous 
hospitalized for bell palsy in 1969 [he did not indicate drug use or an ankle injury]. 
Subsequently, the examining physician qualified him for separation. 

   f.  On 15 May 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for 
violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). His DD Form 458 (Charge 
Sheet) shows he was charged with being AWOL from on or about 17 July 1970 through 
on or about 12 April 1972. 

   g.  On 23 May 1972, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily 
requested discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel 
Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10, for the good of the service. In his 
request, he verified no one had subjected him to coercion, and that counsel had advised 
him of the implications of his request. He further acknowledged he understood that if his 
discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he 
could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, 
and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and 
State laws and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

   h.  The applicant's commander recommended approval of his discharge request for 
the good of the service and the issuance of an undesirable discharge. Subsequently his 
intermediate commander recommended approval of his request for discharge.

   i.  On 14 June 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for 
discharge in lieu of court-martial and directed the issuance of a DD Form 258A 
(Undesirable Discharge Certificate). 

   j.  On 28 June 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly. His DD Form 214 
(Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) confirms he was 
separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, with 
separation program number 246 (for the good of the service – in lieu of court-martial). 
His service was characterized as UOTHC and he was credited with completing 1 year, 
11 months, and 28 days of net active service this period with 635 days of lost time. He 
was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal. 

4.  The applicant was charged due to the commission of an offense punishable under 
the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Subsequent to being charged, he consulted with 
counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
Chapter 10. Such discharges are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by 
court-martial. 

5.  The applicant provides 35 pages of service records, education records, and 33 
pages of post service medical documents. 

6.  In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, 
available records, and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 

?
7.  MEDICAL REVIEW:  

The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor was asked to review this 
case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s ABCMR application and 
accompanying documentation, the military electronic medical record (AHLTA), the VA 
electronic medical record (JLV), the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), the 
Medical Electronic Data Care History and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) 
application, and/or the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System 
(iPERMS).  The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and 
recommendations:  

    a.  The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting an upgrade of his 28 June 
1972 discharge characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  He states:

“During basic training, I became friends with my drill sergeant.  He used his 
influence over me, as a leader, introducing me to other people and drugs.  I 
became hooked on the drugs provided by my drill sergeant, which eventually led 
to alcohol and drug abuse.  While playing basketball, I cracked my left ankle and 
was held over because I had to recover from my ankle injury before going on to 
AIT {advance individual training}. 
.
While at AIT, I keep going AWOL {absent without leave} from my unit because I 
got sick and had to search for drugs.  I eventually ended up at Ft. Devens, MA 
where I kept going AWOL.  My father even turned me in a couple of times.  I 
received Art. 15s and was finally sentenced to the fort detention center.  No one 
in my chain put it together that I needed help.  They let me fall through the 
cracks.  I then received an under conditions other than honorable discharge.”

    b.  The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the 
circumstances of the case.  The DD 214 for the period of Service under consideration 
shows he entered the regular Army on 25 September 1968 and was discharged on 28 
June 1972 under the provisions provided in chapter 10 of AR 635-200, Personnel 
Management – Enlisted Personnel: Discharge for the Good of the Service.  

    c.  His DA Form 20 shows four periods of AWOL; 30 August – 18 September 1969, 5-
6 April 1970, 7-14 July 1970, and 17 July 1970 – 11 April 1972.  He received an Article 
15 for each of the first three periods of AWOL.  It shows no periods of foreign service.  

    d.  The applicant also received several Article 15’s for infractions to include multiple 
failures to repair, failure to obey a lawful order, and striking a superior 
noncommissioned officer.

    e.  A Charge Sheet (DA Form 458) shows he was charged with absence without 
leave from 17 July 1970 thru 12 April 1972.

    f.  The applicant underwent a pre-separation medical examination on 9 May 1972 at 
which time he wrote he was “in good health,” no defects or diagnoses where noted, and 
he was found qualified for separation.

    g.  On 23 May 1972, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service 
under chapter 10 of AR 635-200.  His request was approved by the commanding 
general of the US Army Training Center, Infantry and Fort Dix on 14 June 1972.

    h.  Submitted documentation shows the applicant was admitted for four weeks of 
inpatient treatment for chemical dependency in March 1986.

    i.  No other medical documentation was submitted with the application.  JLV does not 
have a record of the applicant. 

    j.  It is the opinion of the ARBA medical advisor that a discharge upgrade is not 
warranted.

Kurta Questions:

A.	Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the 
discharge?	
	NO
B.	Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service?
	N/A
C.	Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? NA

BOARD DISCUSSION:  

After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within 
the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant’s 
contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. 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 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 carry an under 
other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The Board considered the 
medical records, any VA documents provided by the applicant and the review and 
conclusions of the advising official. The Board concurred with the medical advisory 
opinion finding insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors to overcome the 
misconduct. 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

: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, 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.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1556 provides the Secretary of the Army shall ensure 
that an applicant seeking corrective action by 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.  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.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. 
When authorized, it is issued to Soldiers whose military record is satisfactory but not 
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 

   c.  Chapter 10 provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses under 
the UCMJ, for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could 
submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial 
charges were preferred. Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced 
into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. Consulting counsel 
would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses, the type 
of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of Department 
of Veterans Affairs benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the 
characterization of such a discharge. An UOTHC discharge was normally considered 
appropriate. 

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 post-traumatic 
stress disorder (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 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, 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)	AR20220009726


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1