IN THE CASE OF:  
 
  BOARD DATE: 2 January 2024 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230003908 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) to fully honorable. He also requests a personal appearance.  
 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
 
• DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) 

• DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty 


 
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 wanted to get an upgrade of his discharge due to heavily promoted alcohol abuse at the age of 18. He joined the military at 18 years of age and was sent to Germany where he was immediately met with alcohol. He has since struggled with this problem throughout his adult life. Other people wit similar Article 15 were allowed to stay in the military whereas he was separated. He thinks the correction should be made because in the United States you cannot drink until you are 21 because the brain hasn't finished developing. However, in Germany the military sold and promoted alcohol at an age that he was able to make the best decisions about it. He was ultimately discharged out of the military due to the excessive drinking and drug abuse because of it. 
 
3.  The applicant’s service records are not available for review. An exhaustive search was conducted to locate the service records, but they could not be found. The only documents available were the documents provided by the applicant. These documents are sufficient for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case. 
 
4.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows:  
 
 a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 13 August 1998, and he held military occupational specialty 11M (Fighting Vehicle Infantryman).  
 
 b.  The applicant served in Germany. His exact dates are unknown; however, during this period of service, he deployed to Kosovo from 14 November 1999 to 8 June 2000. 
 
 c.  At the time of separation, he was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 2nd Infantry, Europe (Germany).  
 
 d.  Permanent Order Number 130-79, issued by Headsquares, 1st Battalion, 63rd Armor awarded him the Army Achievement Medal for meritorious achievement while assigned to C Company, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Infantry during Operation Joint Guard, from 30 November 1999 to 20 June 2000. 
 
 e.  The complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available for review. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged from active duty on 12 September 2001, under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations) due to Misconduct, with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. [Note the available DD Form 214 redacted the authority for separation, which is chapter 14] 
 
• he completed 3 years and 1 month of active service, 2 years, 8 months, and 15 days of which is foreign service 

• he held the rank/grade of private/E-1 with an effective date of rank as 7 February 2001 (i.e., he was reduced) 

• he was assigned Separation Code [Redacted]  

• he was awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, NATO Medal, Kosovo Campaign Medal with bronze service star 


 
5.  By regulation (AR 635-200), Soldiers are subject to separation under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c for misconduct, serious offense, or 14-12b for pattern of misconduct. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier s overall record. 
 
6.  There is no indication the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge within that board’s 15-years statute of limitations.  
 
7.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 
 
 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
 
1.  The applicant’s request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. The Board determined the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 
 
1.  The Board determined the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 
 
2.  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’ complete separation packet is not available for review. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. Other evidence shows the applicant was discharged from active duty on 12 September 2001, under what appears to be chapter 14 of AR 635-200 due to misconduct, with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The applicant does not provide evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference 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 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: 
 
Except for the correction addressed in Administrative Note(s) below, 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. 
 
 
  1/2/2024

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): 
 
A review of the applicant’s service records shows he is entitled to awards not listed on his DD Form 214.  As a result, amend his DD Form 214 to show the following awards: 
 
• Army Achievement Medal 

• National Defense Service Medal  


 
  
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 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct.   
 
 a.  The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.   
 
 b.  The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions.  Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR.  The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 
 
3.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations, in effect then sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 
 
 a.  An honorable discharge is given when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance. 
 
 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 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate for a Soldier discharged for misconduct. 
 
4.  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 based on 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. 
 
5.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the National Defense Service Medal is awarded for honorable active service for any period between 27 July 1950 and 27 July 1954, 1 January 1961 and 14 August 1974, 2 August 1990 and 30 November 1995, and 11 September 2001 and a date to be determined.  
 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//