IN THE CASE OF:  
 
  BOARD DATE: 5 September 2023 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230004506 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  reconsideration of his previous request to upgrade his characterization of service from under honorable conditions (general) to honorable. 
 
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),  


8 November 1990 
• DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 


 
FACTS: 
 
1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in: 
 
• Docket Number AC93-10017 on 6 April 1984 

• Docket Number AR20190011477 on 17 January 2020. 


 
2.  The applicant states, he is requesting a new DD Form 214 be issued to reflect an honorable discharge. A board has already reviewed his military records and issued a DD Form 215 to reflect [continuous] honorable service. As new evidence he provides for consideration that he has worked in support of the U.S. military, assigned in Iraq from 2003 to 2010 (7 years) and in Afghanistan (Bagram) from 2011 to 2014 (4 years). He is currently serving at the U.S. Embassy Moscow, Russia for a year. He presently holds a Top-Secret Clearance. He states his dedication and honor of service is as high as it has always been. Additional documents in support of the statements are not included. 
 
3.  The review of the applicant’s service record shows the following: 
 
 a.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 September 1971.  
 
 b.  He received an honorable discharge on 24 February 1975 for the purpose of his immediate reenlistment in the RA on 25 February 1975. 
 
 c.  The applicant reenlisted on 30 June 1981, 22 June 1984, and on 23 March 1987.  
 
 d.  On 26 October 1989, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for wrongful use of marijuana, detected by biochemical testing of a urine sample submitted by the applicant on 25 August 1989. His punishment included forfeiture of $892.00 for two months and 45 days of extra duty.  
 
 e.   On 13 December 1969, the applicant’s immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation actions against him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for commission of a serious offense. The commander indicated his proposed reason for separation was due to wrongful use of marijuana.  
 
 f.  On 29 December 1989, the applicant acknowledged he was advised by his consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for misconduct under AR 635-200, chapter 14, and its effects; of the rights available to him. He requested a personal appearance and consideration of his case by an administrative separation board.  
 
 g.  On 29 December 1989, his immediate commander formally initiated separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, and recommended the applicant receive a general discharge and his service be characterized as under honorable conditions. The commander stated that further rehabilitative measures would not be effective or in the best interest of the Army. The intermediate commander echoed this recommendation. 
 
 h.  The applicant appeared before an administrative separation board, and on  
12 July 1990 the administrative separation board found the applicant wrongfully used marijuana and committed serious misconduct of a nature to bring discredit upon he armed forces. The administrative separation board found his service undesirable for further retention and unanimously recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service due to serious misconduct and he be issued a general discharge.   
 
 i.  On 10 October 1990, the separation authority approved the recommended discharge and directed the applicant be issued an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.   
 
 j.  The applicant was discharged on 8 November 1990. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of 
misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs. His service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general). He completed 15 years, 8 months, and 14 days of net active service during the covered period. He served approximately 19 years, 2 months, and  
8 days of total active service.  
 
 k.  DD Form 215, dated 6 May 2020, shows in: 
 
• Member has completed first full term of service. 

• Continuous Honorable Active Service from 25 February 1975 to 22 March 1987 


 
4.  On 6 April 1994 and in ABCMR Docket Number AC93-10017, the Board denied the applicant’s request and determined the applicant failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  
 
5.  On 17 January 2020 and in ABCMR Docket Number 20190011477, the Board reconsidered the applicant’s request and found the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. The Board determined the overall merits of the case were otherwise insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the applicant. The Board concurred that the applicant’s record showed his DD Form 214 for the period ending 8 November 1990 was missing important entries that affected the applicant’s eligibility for post-service benefits. As a result, the applicant was issued a DD Form 215 on 6 May 2020 to show he had completed his first full term of service and had continuous honorable active service from 25 February 1975 to 
22 March 1987.  
 
6.  Regulatory guidance states when an individual is discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200 for misconduct, an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service is normally appropriate. 
 
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: 
 
After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the applicant’s military records, 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 his 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 (illegal drugs). An administrative 
separation board found the applicant wrongfully used marijuana and committed serious misconduct of a nature to bring discredit upon he armed forces. The administrative separation board found his service undesirable for further retention and unanimously recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service due to serious misconduct and he be issued a general discharge. The separation authority approved the findings and ordered him separated with a general discharge. The Board did not that the applicant completed over 15 years of active service during the period being contested. However, the Board also determine that his years of service do not justify the use of illegal drugs. Additionally, 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 the preponderance of the 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. 
 
  9/5/2023

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.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  
 
a.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absences without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. 
 
 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 used for a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  
 
 d.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, homosexuality, security reasons, and for the good of the service.  
 
2.  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 regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 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. This guidance does not mandate relief but provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority.  
 
 a.  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//