IN THE CASE OF:  
 
  BOARD DATE: 19 September 2023 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230001194 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: 
 
• an upgrade of his discharge from general under honorable conditions to honorable 

• to add combat service and dates in Panama to his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) ending on 22 January 1993  


 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
 
• DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) 

• DD Form 214, 22 January 1993  


 
FACTS: 
 
1.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), 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, he requests to change his discharge from General, Under Honorable Conditions to an Honorable discharge to improve his life and mental health. He also requests to add his combat service and dates to his DD Form 214.   
 
3.  A review of the applicant's military record shows the following: 
 
 a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 March 1989. 
 
 b.  On 26 January 1990, Headquarters, Joint Task Force – South, Fort Bragg, NC published Permanent Orders 12-11 which awarded the applicant the Combat Medical Badge for service during the period of 20 December 1989 to 7 January 1990.   
 
 c.  His record contains:   
 
  (1) DA Form 2A (Personnel Qualification Record - Part I) which shows his last combat tour was in Panama in January 1990. 
 
  (2) DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part II) which shows in item 27 (Remarks) he performed duty in imminent danger pay area Panama from  
20 December 1989 to 10 January 1990  
  
 d.  DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) dated 7 January 1992 and an unknown date show the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 to 9 January 1992. 
 
 e.  On 28 February 1992, he accepted Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being AWOL from on or about 4 to 9 January 1992. His punishment consisted of reduction to E-3 (private first class/PFC), suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 29 May 1992: extra duty and restriction. He did not appeal.  
 
 f.  DA Form 2627-2 (Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ) shows the suspension of punishment of reduction to E-3 imposed on the applicant on 28 February 1992 was vacated and executed. The vacation was based on the applicant failing to be at his appointed place of duty on 3 and 6 April 1992.  
 
 g.  DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Form) during the period of 6 April to  
23 October 1992 show the applicant was counseled for: failing to be at his appointed place of duty on multiple occasions, being arrested for reckless driving, and being relieved of duty.  
 
 h.  On 18 November 1992, DA Form 4187 shows the applicant was reduced by a Field Grade Article 15 (NJP) to private (E-1) with a Date of Rank of 16 November 1992. 
 
 i.  On 8 December 1992 – 
 
  (1) The immediate commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b (Pattern of Misconduct). The commander also informed the applicant of his rights, and he acknowledged receipt of the correspondence. 
 
  (2) The applicant was advised of the basis for his, contemplated separation and its effects, and the rights available to him. He submitted statements on his own behalf; however, the statements are not available. The applicant acknowledged and understood that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him. He further understood that, as 
the result of issuance of a discharge under other than honorable condition, he may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.    
 
  (3) The immediate commander formally recommended separation because the applicant had established a pattern of misconduct, after formal counseling in accordance with AR 635-200, which clearly established that further attempts to develop the applicant as a satisfactory Soldier was unlikely to succeed. The formal recommendation shows the applicant was punished under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ on 28 February and 16 November 1992.   
 
 j.  On 30 December 1992, the intermediate commander recommended approval of the separation action and also recommended a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service.  
 
 k.  On 8 January 1993, the separation authority directed the applicant be separated from the Army under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for a pattern of misconduct and he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  
 
 l.  On 22 January 1993, the applicant was discharged accordingly. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 14-12b of AR 635-200 with an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service (Separation Code JKM, Reentry Code 3). He completed 3 years, 10 months, and 11 days of active service with lost time from 5 to 8 January 1992. Additionally:  
 
  (1)  Block 13 (decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) show she was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Parachutist Badge, Combat Medical Badge, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and Expert badge with Rifle Bar. 
 
  (2)  Block 18 (Remarks) does not show he was deployed to Panama.         
 
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 applicant's contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. 
 
 a.  The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 shows in item 27 (Remarks) he performed duty in imminent danger pay area Panama from 20 December 1989 to 10 January 1990. He was also awarded the Combat Medical Badge for service during the period of 20 December 1989 to 7 January 1990. The Board determined his deployment should be listed in item 18 of his DD Form 214.  
 b.  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 evidence shows the applicant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct following a series of misconduct that included AWOL, failing to be at his appointed place of duty on multiple occasions, being arrested for reckless driving, being relieved of duty, and failure to report. He received a general discharge. 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 
 
xx: xx: xx: 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 to Block 18 (Remarks) of his DD Form 214 the entry “Service in Panama from 20 December 1989 to 10 January 1990.” 
  
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 to honorable.   
 
  9/19/2023

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, USC, 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.  AR 15–185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. In pertinent part, it states that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. The ABCMR will decide cases based on the evidence of record. The ABCMR is not an investigative agency.     
 
3.  AR 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) prescribes the transition processing function of the military personnel system. It provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing required actions in the field to support processing personnel for separation and preparation of separation documents. 
 
 a.  Paragraph 5-1 (When to prepare the DD Form 214) provides that, the DD Form 214 is a summary of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clearcut record of all current active, prior active, and prior inactive duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. 
 
 b.  Paragraph 5-6 (Rules for completing the DD Form 214) states, this paragraph provides detailed instructions for data required in each block of the DD Form 214. The specific instructions for Block 18 (Remarks) state, in pertinent part, for active duty Soldiers, list any/all outside the continental United States (OCONUS) deployments completed during the period of the DD Form 214 as follows "SERVICE IN (NAME OF COUNTRY DEPLOYED) FROM (inclusive dates)." 
 
4.  AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) sets policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for  
the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. 
 
 a.  Paragraph 14-12b (A Pattern of Misconduct) states, a pattern of misconduct consists of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities. Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. Discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order, and discipline includes conduct violative of the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, the civil law, and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army.  
 
 b.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier'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.   
 
 c.  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. 
 
5.  On 25 July 2018, 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/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.  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.  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//