IN THE CASE OF:    
 
  BOARD DATE:  12 September 2023 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20230001892 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  An upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge.  
 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:   
DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge) 
 
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 did not do anything dishonorable, he had a medium security clearance, and it was broken.  
 
3.  On 11 February 1988, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a 4-year service obligation. 
 
4.  He was reported absent without leave (AWOL) from his advanced individual training at Fort Gordon, GA on or about 30 May 1988 until 1 June 1988. He was again reported AWOL on or about 8 June 1988.  
 
5.  On 18 August 1988, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows he was charged with being AWOL from on or about 8 June 1988 until 12 August 1988.  
 
6.  On 22 August 1988, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10, for the good of the service. In his request, he acknowledged he was making the request of his own free will, that no one had subjected him to coercion, and that counsel had advised him of the implications of his 
request. He further acknowledged he was guilty of the charge, and he submitted the following statement in his own behalf:   
 
I [the applicant] would like to leave the active duty, because:  A. Only one of my parents have to depend on.  B. My daughter medical condition.  C. My wife’s condition & to raise my children.  D. Recruiter or Military Entrance Processing Station lost some paperwork. Mostly because my security & privacy was violated. I love my country and proud to be an American.     Signed      
 
7.  On 2 September 1988, the applicant's commander recommended approval of his discharge request and the issuance of an UOTHC discharge. The commander noted the applicant had become disillusioned with the military and had 65 days AWOL before being apprehended by civil authorities. Subsequently, the staff judge advocate reviewed the request and recommended approval.  
 
8.  On 12 September 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed his reduction to the lowest enlisted grade with the issuance of an UOTHC Discharge Certificate.  
 
9.  On 23 September 1988, 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 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of court martial. His service was characterized as UOTHC. He was credited with completing 5 months and 7 days of net active service this period, with two periods of lost time.  
 
10.  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.  
 
11.  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.  
 
BOARD DISCUSSION:   
 
After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not 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 charged with commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge (AWOL). 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 applicant provided insufficient evidence of post-service achievements, letters of reference/support, or evidence of a persuasive nature 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 were not in error or unjust. 
 
BOARD VOTE:   
 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
 
: : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
 
xx: xx: xx: 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. 
 
  9/12/2023

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, 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 635-200, 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 (VA) benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. An UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate.  
 
3.  On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR) 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//