IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 17 January 2024

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230006813


APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of his characterization of service from under 
other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to under honorable conditions (general).

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

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), 4 March 2023
*	Self-authored Statement, 4 March 2023
*	Honorable Discharge Certificate, 15 January 1981
*	UOTHC Discharge Certificate, 14 September 1983
*	Certificate of Completion, 6 October 1983
*	Certificate of Safe Driving, 15 September 2022

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, in effect, he is remorseful for the mistakes and transgressions 
that occurred when he served. After being discharged he went to school for Security 
and Truck Driving. He had a successful career as a truck driver for over 40 years and 
has received multiple certificates of safe driving. He is married and provides his family 
with a solid foundation built on values, discipline, honesty, structure, and leadership. He 
is active in his church and community, is a law-abiding citizen, and has lead a 
successful and productive life.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 July 1978, for a 3-year period. He 
was honorably discharged on 15 January 1981, for immediate reenlistment. He 
reenlisted on 16 January 1981 for a period of 3 years. He was awarded the military 
occupational specialty of 64C (Motor Transport Operator), the highest rank he attained 
was Specialist Four (SP4)/E-4.

4.  Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 16 August 1983 for 
violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The relevant DD Form 458 
(Charge Sheet) shows he was charged with:

	a.  Violating a lawful general regulation by purchasing two entertainment packages, 
twelve radio/cassette players valued in excess of $60.00, eight color televisions of 
Korean manufacture, two color televisions of non-Korean manufacture, one stereo 
music system, five sets of audio speakers, and four video tape recorders for illegal 
transfer or production of income through sale, barter, or exchange (e.g., black-market 
activities).

	b.  Violating a lawful general regulation by failing to present, upon the request of 
military law enforcement personnel, valid and bona fide information or documentation 
relating to continued possession or lawful disposition of the following duty-free items, 
two entertainment packages, twelve radio/cassette players each valued in excess of 
$60.00, eight color televisions of Korean manufacture, two color televisions of non-
Korean manufacture, one stereo music system, five sets of audio speakers, and four 
video tape recorders.

5.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel on 1 September 1983. After consulting 
with counsel, the applicant executed a written request for discharge for the good of the 
service under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations-
Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service). He 
acknowledged his understanding of the following in his request:

	a.  He understood that he could request discharge for the good of the service 
because the charges preferred against him could result in the imposition of a punitive 
discharge.

	b.  Prior to completing this request, he was afforded the opportunity to consult with 
appointed counsel, who fully advised him of the basis for his contemplated trial by court-
martial, the maximum punishment authorized under the UCMJ, of the possible effects of 
an under other than honorable conditions character of service, and of the procedures 
and rights available to him. 

	c.  He acknowledged that he was making this request of his own free will and had 
not been subjected to any coercion by any person. Although counsel furnished him legal 
advice, this decision was his own. Additionally, he elected not to submit a statement in 
his own behalf.

6.  On 2 September 1983, the applicant’s immediate and intermediate commanders 
recommended approval of the request for discharge for the good of the service, with a 
service characterization of UOTHC.
7.  The separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of 
court-martial on 7 September 1983, and further directed the issuance a DD Form 794A 
(UOTHC Discharge Certificate) and reduction to the grade of E-1.

8.  The applicant was discharged on 14 September 1983, under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service. His DD Form 214 
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms a UOTHC 
characterization of service, with separation code JFS and reenlistment code RE-3/3C. 
He was credited with 5 years, 2 months, and 12 days of net active service. He was 
awarded the following decorations, medals, badges, citations, and campaign ribbons:

*	Good Conduct Medal
*	Army Service Ribbon
*	Overseas Service Ribbon
*	Expert (Rifle)
*	Marksman (Hand Grenade)

9.  He additionally provides a certificate for successful completion of security officers 
basic training course and a certificate of safe driving for 25 years.

10.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board 
within that Boards 15-year statute of limitations.

11.  Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, are 
voluntary requests for discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of a trial by court-
martial. An UOTHC character of service is normally considered appropriate.

12.  The Board should consider the applicant's argument and/or evidence in accordance 
with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance.


BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found 
within the military record, the Board found that partial relief was warranted. The Board 
carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support 
of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy 
and regulation, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal and clemency 
determinations requests for upgrade of his characterization of service.  Upon review of 
the applicant’s petition and available military records, the Board found insufficient 
evidence of in-service mitigating factors for the misconduct to weigh a clemency 
determination. The Board considered the applicant’s post service achievements and his 
honorable conduct as an active member within his community.  
2.  The Board found the applicant’s misconduct of illegal transfer or production of 
income through sale, barter, or exchange could not be mitigated and the discharge the 
applicant received at separation was appropriate.  However, during deliberation the 
Board determined the applicant had a prior period of honorable service which is not 
currently reflected on his DD Form 214 and recommended that change be completed to 
more accurately show his period of honorable service by granting a partial upgrade.

3.  Prior to closing the case, the Board did note the analyst of record administrative 
notes below, and recommended the correction is completed to more accurately depict 
the military service of the applicant.


BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:X	:X	:X	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	:	:	DENY APPLICATION


?
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  In addition to the administrative notes annotated by the Analyst of Record (below the 
signature), the Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a 
recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all 
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adding in 
item 18 (Remarks) the following entry:

*	SOLDIER HAS COMPLETED FIRST FULL TERM OF SERVICE
*	CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 19780703 UNTIL 
19810115

2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a 
portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of 
the application that pertains to upgrade of his characterization of service from under 
other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to under honorable conditions (general).


	 
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 NOTES:

A review of the applicant’s records shows he is authorized additional awards not 
annotated on his DD Form 214 for the period ending 14 September 1983.  As a result, 
amend his DD Form 214 by adding: Korea 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 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the 
separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has 
committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a 
punitive discharge may, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu 
of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have 
been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an 
honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable 
conditions is normally considered appropriate.

	b.  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.

	c.  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.

3.  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/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.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20230006813


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1