IN THE CASE OF:  
 
  BOARD DATE: 8 August 2023 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230005479 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  his under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded. 
 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) 
 
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 was discharged for being detained for writing a bad check. He admits that he had previously been told not to write checks for insufficient funds. He had gone to the place [creditor] with enough cash on hand but they still called the police. On previous occasions, he had been able to pay in cash. His new First Sergeant wanted to make an example of him and would not let him explain. He feels that he was a model Soldier and would have been a career Soldier. The misconduct discharge was too much and the results of it have followed him for the rest of his life. 
 
3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 March 1995, for 3 years, and completed training with award of the military occupational specialty 19K (M1 Armor Crewman). The highest grade he is shown to have held was E-1. 
 
4.  Between 18 October 1995 and 7 March 1995, the applicant was formally counseled on 5 occasions for failure to make payments on time and/or writing bad checks. 
 
5.  The applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant, on 4 March 1996, of his intent to initiate actions to separate him under Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b for a pattern of misconduct. The reasons for the proposed action are: failure to pay just, debts and writing bad checks. 
 
6.  A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 5 March 1996, shows the applicant had no abnormalities in behavior, level of orientation, mood, thinking process, thought content, or memory. He was determined to be mentally capable to understand and participate in the proceedings deemed appropriate by command. 
 
7.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel on 12 March 1996. He was advised of the basis for the contemplated discharge, the possible effects of an under honorable conditions discharge, and the procedures and rights that were available to him. He waived all of his administrative rights including to submit a statement in his own behalf. 
 
8.  The applicant's immediate commander formally recommended his separation from service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b for a pattern of misconduct. The specific reason for the recommendation was due to the applicant's failure to pay just debts and writing bad checks. 
 
9.  The separation authority approved the discharge recommendation under Army Regulation 635-200, para 14-12b, on 16 April 1996, waived further rehabitation requirements, directed he receive a General Discharge Certificate, and that he not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserves. 
 
10.  The applicant was discharged on 29 April 1996, in the pay grade of E-1 with a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service (Separation Code JKA, Reentry Code 3). His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active Duty) shows he was credited with 1 year, 1 month, and 23 days of net active service. His awards are listed as the National Defense Service Medal, Army Service Medal, Expert Qualification Badge with Grenade bar, and the Marksman Qualification Badge with Pistol bar. 
 
11.  There is no evidence the applicant has applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of her discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.  
 
12.  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 and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was 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 applicant was discharged from active duty due to a pattern of misconduct (writing bad checks, failing to pay just debt) with a 
general, under honorable conditions discharge. 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 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. 
 
  8/8/2023

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 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 
 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 14 (Separation for Misconduct) establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and absence without leave. 
 
 d.  Paragraph 14-12b (A pattern of misconduct) states a Soldier may be discharged for pattern of misconduct consisting of one of the following:   
 
  (1) Discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities.  
 
  (2) Discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, the civil law, and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 
 
3.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 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//