IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  30 August 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20230000921


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

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

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), with a self-authored 
statement, dated 21 October 2022
*	Photocopy of his marriage license
*	Educational Certificates (five) and Bachelor of Science diploma
*	Spouse Character Reference Letter, dated 20 October 2022
*	Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), Case Management Division, request for 
supporting medical documents, dated 9 March 2023
*	Physician’s letter, dated 16 March 2023

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 he was and is an alcoholic, but he has been sober for 28 years. 
This is due to his faith, family, counseling sessions, a six-week abuse program, and a 
12-month in house faith-based rehab known as Teen Challenge in 1994. He wishes to 
apologize for his terrible disrespect and attitude. He contends it was due to alcoholism 
and mental health issues. He no longer drinks and takes medication for his bi-polar 
condition. He notes a timeline of his post military service. On his DD Form 149, the 
applicant notes mental health and sexual assault/harassment as issues related to his 
request.

3.  Having had prior service in the Army National Guard, the applicant enlisted in the 
Regular Army on 14 February 1980. He served in military occupational specialty 76Y 
(Unit Supply Specialist).

4.  On 27 January 1981, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under 
the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for while 
drunk operate a passenger vehicle in a reckless manner at excess speed and thereby 
strike a fence; for driving a passenger car without a valid operator’s license; and for 
wrongfully and unlawfully leaving the scene of the accident, on or about 28 July 1980. 
His punishment included reduction to E-3 (suspended until 27 May 1981), forfeiture of 
$331 pay (on or after 1 February 1981), and 30 days extra duty. 

5.  On 13 January 1983, the applicant reenlisted for a 3-year service obligation. He was 
promoted to his highest grade held Specialist Five/E-5 on 3 June 1983. 

6.  He accepted NJP, under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on the following:

*	27 July 1983, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty 
on or about 17 July 1983; his punishment included forfeiture of $100 and 14 days 
of extra duty
*	22 November 1983, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place 
of duty on or about 4, 6, and 9 November 1983; his punishment included 
reduction to E-4 and forfeiture of $75
*	23 January 1984, for absenting himself from his unit from on or about 16 January 
1984 until 17 January 1984; his punishment included reduction to E-3, forfeiture 
of $185, 14 days extra duty and 14 days restriction

7.  On 26 January 1984, the applicant underwent a mental status examination. The 
DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation) shows he was seen at 
Community Mental Health Service for psychiatric evaluation. He presented with no 
history of mental illness, no psychiatric illness was present, and he was psychiatrically 
cleared for administrative action. 

8.  On 22 February 1984, the applicant accepted NJP, under the provisions of Article 15 
of the UCMJ, for operating a passenger vehicle while drunk on or about 8 February 
1984. His punishment included reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $300 pay for two months, 
and 30 days extra duty. 

9.  On 7 March 1984, the applicant's commander notified the applicant of his intent to 
initiate separation actions against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 
(Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory 
performance. The commander noted as reasons for the proposed separation, six NJPs, 
reducing him from E-5 to E-2 for various offenses, his attitude towards senior 
noncommissioned officers (NCO) and senior commissioned officers was of complete 
disrespect, his military appearance was substandard, and he refused to correct the 
situation. He acknowledged receipt on the same date.

10.  On 7 March 1984, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation 
notification. He was advised of the reasons for separation and of the rights available to 
him. He elected not to consult with legal counsel and elected not to submit a statement 
in his own behalf. He further acknowledged he understood he might expect to encounter 
substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge was issued to him.

11.  The applicant's commander formally recommended his separation from service, 
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, by reason of 
unsatisfactory performance. He again cited the aforementioned reasons for his request 
and recommended a waiver of further rehabilitative measures. 

12.  On 8 March 1984, the applicant underwent a separation examination, wherein he 
noted he was in good health and was cleared for separation. 

13.  On 9 March 1984, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of 
the UCMJ, for being disrespectful in language towards his superior NCO; and 
disobeying a lawful order from his superior NCO on or about 4 February 1984. His 
punishment included reduction to E-1 and forfeiture of $200 pay. 

14.  The applicant’s battalion commander recommended approval of the separation 
action. On 19 March 1984, the separation authority approved the recommended 
discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 

15.  On 29 March 1984, the applicant was discharged accordingly. His DD Form 214 
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms he was discharged 
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, by reason of 
unsatisfactory performance. His service was characterized as under honorable 
conditions (general). He was credited with completing 4 years, 1 month, and 10 days of 
net active service this period, with 1 year, 5 months, and 12 days of prior active service. 
He had two periods of lost time on 11 November 1984 and 18 January 1984 to 
22 January 1984.

16.  Regulatory guidance provides that the service of Soldiers separated because of 
unsatisfactory performance would be characterized as honorable or under honorable 
conditions. 

17.  On 14 March 2023, in the processing of this case the U.S. Army Criminal 
Investigation Division, searched their criminal file indexes, which revealed no Criminal 
Investigative and/or Military Police Reports pertaining to the applicant. 

18.  The applicant provides:

	a.  A character reference letter from his wife attesting they have been married since 
17 March 1989. She states, the applicant has battled with the demons from his past and 
his time during the military is one of the things that has haunted him. He has always had 
a desire to do well and be a contributing part of society.

	b.  Educational certificates for completion of water quality and treatment. He has an 
Associate of Applied Science degree in Water Quality Management and a Bachelor of 
Science in Environmental Science.

	c.  A physician’s letter that states he has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 
2001, and has not been able to work since.

19.  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. 

20.  MEDICAL REVIEW:  

    a.  The applicant requests an upgrade of his under honorable conditions, general, 
discharge to honorable. He contends his misconduct was related to Other Mental Health 
Issues and Sexual Assault/Harassment.  
    b.  The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMR 
Record of Proceedings (ROP). Pertinent to this advisory are the following: 1) The 
applicant enlisted into the Regular Army on 14 February 1980; 2) On 27 January 1981, 
the applicant accepted NJP, under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for while 
drunk operating a passenger vehicle in a reckless manner, driving a passenger car 
without a valid operator’s license, and for wrongfully and unlawfully leaving the scene of 
the accident, on or about 28 July 1980; 3) On 7 March 1984, the applicant's commander 
notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation actions against him under the 
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), 
Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance; 4) The applicant’s battalion commander 
recommended approval of the separation action. On 19 March 1984, the separation 
authority approved the recommended discharge and directed the issuance of a General 
Discharge Certificate; 5) On 29 March 1984, the applicant was discharged accordingly 
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, by reason of 
unsatisfactory performance.
    c.  The VA electronic medical record (JLV), ROP, and casefiles were reviewed.  The 
military electronic medical record (AHLTA) was not reviewed as it was not in use during 
the applicant’s time in service. Included in the applicant’s casefile was a Report of 
Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 January 1984, that showed the examiner noted the 
applicant presented with no history of mental illness and that he was psychiatrically 
cleared for administrative action. Also included in the casefile was a Report of Medical 
Examination, dated 8 March 1984, that showed the applicant was deemed medically 
qualified for administrative separation. No other military BH records were provided for 
review.  A review of JLV was void of any treatment history for the applicant and he does 
not have a service-connected disability.  The applicant provided a letter from a provider 
with Kaiser Permanente, dated 16 March 2003, that stated the applicant had been 
under the provider’s care for the past year and that the applicant was diagnosed with 
Bipolar Disorder in 2001.  Nothing in the documentation associated the Bipolar Disorder 
diagnosis with military service.
    d.  The applicant is seeking an upgrade of his under honorable conditions, general, 
discharge to honorable.  He contends his misconduct was related to Other Mental 
Health Issues and Sexual Assault/Harassment.   A review of the records was void of 
any BH diagnosis or treatment history during service.  Post-service records, in the form 
of a letter from the applicant’s provider, showed the applicant was diagnosed with 
Bipolar Disorder in 2001; 14 years after discharge from the military.  The letter in no way 
associated the disorder with military service and given the time between his discharge 
from service (March 1984) and the diagnosis (2001), and the fact that during his Report 
of Mental Status Evaluation (January 1984) he was found to not have a history of 
mental illness and no psychiatric illness, it is unlikely had the disorder during military 
service or that it is connected to service.  Also, although the applicant selected Sexual 
Assault/Harassment on his DD Form 149, he provided no additional content or context 
regarding the assertion, and a memorandum from the Department of the Army CID, 
dated 14 March 2023, showed that a review of the Army Criminal File Indexes revealed 
no records pertaining to the individual.  In absence of documentation supporting the 
applicant’s contentions, there is insufficient evidence to find his misconduct was related 
to Other Mental Health Issues and/or Sexual Assault/Harassment, and insufficient 
evidence to support an upgrade to his discharge characterization. Also, although the 
applicant reported a history of alcohol abuse during service, liberal guidance does not 
offer relief for alcohol abuse in absence of another comorbid BH disorder. 
    e.  Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that 
there is insufficient evidence that the applicant had an experience or condition during 
his time in service.  However, the applicant contends his misconduct was related to 
Other Mental Health Issues and Sexual Assault/Harassment, and per liberal guidance, 
his contention is sufficient to warrant the Board’s consideration.       
Kurta Questions:
    (1)  Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience that 
may excuse or mitigate a discharge? Yes.  The applicant contends his misconduct was 
related to Other Mental Health Issues and Sexual Assault/Harassment. 
    (2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes.   
    (3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No.   
A review of the records was void of any BH diagnosis or treatment history during 
service.  Post-service records, in the form of a letter from the applicant’s provider, 
showed the applicant was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder in 2001; 14 years after 
discharge from the military.  The letter in no way associated the disorder with military 
service and given the time between his discharge from service (March 1984) and the 
diagnosis (2001), and the fact that during his Report of Mental Status Evaluation 
(January 1984) he was found to not have a history of mental illness and no psychiatric 
illness, it is unlikely had the disorder during military service or that it is connected to 
service.  Also, although the applicant selected Sexual Assault/Harassment on his DD 
Form 149, he provided no additional content or context regarding the assertion, and a 
memorandum from the Department of the Army CID, dated 14 March 2023, showed that 
a review of the Army Criminal File Indexes revealed no records pertaining to the 
individual.  In absence of documentation supporting the applicant’s contentions, there is 
insufficient evidence to find his misconduct was related to Other Mental Health Issues 
and/or Sexual Assault/Harassment, and insufficient evidence to support an upgrade to 
his discharge characterization. Also, although the applicant reported a history of alcohol 
abuse during service, liberal guidance does not offer relief for alcohol abuse in absence 
of another comorbid BH disorder.

BOARD DISCUSSION:  

1.  After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found 
within the military record, the Board found that partial relief was 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, available military records and medical review, the Board 
concurred with the advising official finding insufficient evidence that the applicant had an 
experience or condition during his time in service. The medical opine noted in absence 
of documentation supporting the applicant’s contentions, there is insufficient evidence to 
find his misconduct was related to Other Mental Health Issues and/or Sexual 
Assault/Harassment, and insufficient evidence to support an upgrade to his discharge 
characterization. 

2.  Furthermore, the Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigation to 
overcome the misconduct.  He was discharged for unsatisfactory performance and was 
provided an under honorable conditions (General) characterization of service. The 
applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements, or character letters in 
support of a clemency determination.  The Board agreed that the applicant's discharge 
characterization is warranted as he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct 
and performance of duty for Army personnel to receive an Honorable discharge. 
However, the Board did note that the applicant had a prior period of honorable service 
which is not currently reflected on his DD Form 214 and recommended that change be 
completed to more accurately show the applicant’s period of honorable service by 
granting a partial upgrade.

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 amending 
his DD Form 214 for the period ending 29 March 1984. As a result, add the following 
entries to item 18 (Remarks): 

*	SOLDIER HAS COMPLETED FIRST FULL TERM OF SERVICE
*	CONTINUOUS HONORABLE SERVICE FROM 19800214 UNTIL 19830112

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 upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) 
discharge to an honorable 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.
ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): N/A


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 appropriate when the quality 
of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and 
performance of duty for Army personnel.  

   b.  Chapter 13 provided the policies and procedures for separating Soldiers due to 
unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment, the individual would 
not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention would have an adverse impact on military 
discipline, good order and morale; the service member would be a disruptive influence 
in the future; the basis for separation would continue or recur; and/or the ability of the 
service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement 
or leadership, was unlikely. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory 
performance under this regulation would be characterized as honorable or under 
honorable conditions. 

4.  On 3?September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge 
Review Boards (DRB) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 
(BCM/NR) to carefully consider the revised post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 
criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on 
applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than 
honorable conditions and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental 
health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it 
would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 

5.  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 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. 

6.  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, 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)	AR20230000921


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1