IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE: 14 September 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230002504


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

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

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Applicant Letter
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
*	Department of Veterans Affairs, Statement in Support of Claim
*	Driver’s License

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 hopes for a character of service upgrade. He feels the 
current character of service is too severe for his in-service offense of a speeding ticket; 
that landed him in jail for 20 days and made him absent without leave (AWOL). He feels 
the judge was excessive in his punishment. He did not know he could ask for a 
character of service upgrade until recently. His current discharge of UOTHC does not sit 
well with him. He feels a speeding ticket should not have gotten him a bad discharge. 

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 March 1986 for four years. His 
military occupational specialty was 62B (Construction Equipment Repairer). 

4.  The applicant was reported AWOL on 20 March 1987 and dropped from the unit rolls 
as a deserter on 19 April 1987. He surrendered to military authorities at Yuma Proving 
Grounds, AZ, and was placed in civilian confinement until 7 May 1987. He was 
transported to jail awaiting transportation until 14 May 1987 to Fort Ord, CA.

5.  A Military Police Report, reiterates the above and further shows the applicant was 
sent by Sky West Airlines unescorted to Fort Ord, CA on 14 May 1987. 

6.  The applicant was reported present for duty on 14 May 1987.

7.  Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 3 June 1987, 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 20 March 1987 until 
on or about 24 April 1987.

8.  On the same date, the applicant consulted with legal counsel 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 a UOTHC discharge; and the 
procedures and rights that were available to him. 

     a.  Subsequent to 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 his request for discharge, he acknowledged his understanding that 
by requesting discharge, he 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. 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. 

     b.  He did not elect to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

9.  The applicant's immediate commander recommended approval of the applicant's 
request for discharge. The commander noted the applicant’s pattern of behavior 
indicates that retention is neither practical nor desirable. The chain of command 
recommended the issuance of an UOTHC discharge.

10.  The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge on 
10 September 1987, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He directed that the applicant be 
reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and receive an UOTHC discharge.

11.  The applicant was discharged on 6 October 1987. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows was discharged under the provisions of 
AR 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial. His 
service was characterized as UOTHC. He completed 1 year, 5 months, and 13 days of 
net active service. He lost time from 20 March 1987 to 23 April 1987.

12.  The applicant was charged due to the commission of an offense punishable under 
the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Such discharges are voluntary requests for 
discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 

13.  The applicant provides:

     a.  A copy of his DD Form 214, and driver’s license.

     b.  A Department of Veterans Affairs, Statement in Support of Claim, which states he 
was pulled over for speeding while serving in AZ. He was placed in jail on a Sunday and 
his court date was on Tuesday. He was not afforded the opportunity to call his 
command while in jail to notify them. At his court appearance, the judge gave him a 
severe punishment of 20 days in jail for speeding. This made him AWOL, and he was 
separated from service for UOTHC. He feels the judge gave him an extreme 
punishment for a simple speeding ticket that ruined his military service. He was young 
and scared at the time, so he unfortunately accepted the characterization of service. 
Based on this information, please consider a character of service upgrade to under 
honorable conditions.

14.  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:

The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, 
evidence in the records, and published Department of Defense guidance for 
consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's 
statement, his record of service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct, the reason 
for his separation, and whether to apply clemency. The Board found insufficient 
evidence of in-service mitigating factors and 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 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

: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.
	 
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 (AR) 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 a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not 
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 

     c.  Chapter 10 provided 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, a UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate. 

3.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to 
Service Discharge Review Boards and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval 
Records (BCM/NRs) 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)	AR20230002504


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1