IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 February 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210011856 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, the following: a. His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. b. Amendment of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) as follows: * correct Item 24 (Character of Service) to show his service was "Under Honorable Conditions (General)" * correct Item 26 (Separation Code) to show an unspecified, presumably more favorable separation code * correct Item 27 (Reentry (RE) Code) to show his RE code as "2" instead of "4" or in the alternative, an RE code that renders him eligible for reenlistment * correct Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) to show his narrative reason for separation as "Other" instead of "In lieu of court-martial" APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), Section 1552), dated 5 February 2021 * Petition from Counsel (9 pages), with the following six (6) Exhibits: * Exhibit 1 – Applicant's DD Form 214 * Exhibit 2 – Representational Power of Attorney * Exhibit 3 – DD Form 149 * Exhibit 4 – Personal Statement from the Applicant * Exhibit 5 – Character Reference from D_____ * Exhibit 6 – Character Reference from D_____ FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, USC, 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 provides a letter, addressed to the Board, wherein he states: I am writing to you to seek your mercy as well as your justice in correcting my records to upgrade my UOTHC Discharge to something that more accurately and fairly reflects not only my service but how others in my position were treated so that l may take advantage of basic veteran medical benefits I so desperately need and rightfully deserve. Members of the Board, I used marijuana and was caught in random urinalyses to which I was directed to go. I erred and I am an honest and honorable enough person to admit to you right up front that I did err in both judgment and action. However, I would ask that you put this error into proper perspective given my age at the time, the level of offense, how others were treated, my overall character and quality of service and the sheer injustice of being punished so overly harshly particularly given society's views and forced legal changes around the country in the matter. In order to help you do this, I would like to introduce myself to you since I know you review many records. I thank you for your time and your kind attention. I am from Bainbridge, a very small "backwater" town in Georgia. I grew up in a very very poor family and was saddled with the additional burden of an alcoholic father. Believe me, it is not easy growing up in such an abusive and violent household; but I wanted to make something of myself I was always very very close to my grandmother. She helped me cope with my home situation. I have three siblings, but my dad was hardest on me for some reason. Perhaps because I was the oldest son. He always told me I would never amount to anything. I grew up desperate to leave home and get away from him. He would often come home drunk and come find me beat me. He never did this to my brother or my sisters. He caused me great pain and depression. After I graduated from high school, I finally moved out. Things on my own were so very difficult and I kept hearing my father's words in my head that I would never amount to anything. I decided to join the Army because I have always loved this country and I wanted to serve. My grandfather was in the Army and I always admired him and wanted to be like him. I was very proud to be in uniform and serving my country. My grandmother was so very proud of me as well. In the Army, I was assigned to the Infantry. I was a good shooter and qualified as expert in marksmanship. I then went into air assault. I made E-4 and received my Expert [Infantryman] Badge my first time without any mistakes or "true blue" as we called it. I was even made a tester at the Grenade Station the following year. I served as the 203 Gunner in my team. Often, because of my skills, I was directed to be point man on our practice missions reading maps of buildings and logistics tables. I held the rank of E-4, promotable, for 2 years prior to leaving Fort Campbell, Kentucky. During this time my life was good. I loved being in the Army. I felt like I was doing something worthwhile for the country and for myself. I felt I was making something of myself. I actually began to feel as if I would prove my father was wrong. I was noticed for taking charge in situations. I served as an E-4 team leader for a while and my superiors sent me to become a scout. I was the sniper in my scout team. I was asked to reenlist at the end of my first term. When I reenlisted, we were at the National Training Center at the time. I was back in a line unit and I was doing well. I had 3 years 11 months of service at the time I reenlisted. [Lieutenant Colonel] J____ is the officer that reenlisted me. Before I arrived at my new duty station, Ft. Hood, Texas, I went on leave to go home. I was so upset to find my father had not changed toward me at all. He had not changed his low opinion of me and still said I would not amount to anything. I was very depressed after all I had achieved and to have him throw it in my face and try to make me feel worthless again. Unfortunately, as it turns out, the day before my leave was up and I was to arrive at my new duty station; I ran into an old friend from high school. He was smoking marijuana. I admit that I just was not in a good place in my head at the time. I was feeling worthless and that all I had tried to show for my life was completely dismissed by my father. I could not go home after the fight my father and I had had earlier that day; so I went to my grandmother's house. I stayed there for the night. She took me to the bus station the next morning and I left for Ft. Hood. The day I arrived at Ft. Hood I was directed to participate in a random urinalysis test. I immediately admitted to my new chain of command what had happened the day before and that the test was likely to come back positive–which it did. I received an Article 15, worked off my punishment and received my E-4 rank back owing to my hard work and dedication to duty. I mentioned my grandmother earlier. My relationship with my grandmother was great. We talked all the time. I used to go spend the day with her all the time and talk about everything. Every time I went home; her house was my first stop. She passed during my time at Ft. Hood. I took it very hard and I still take it hard. I lost my best friend. I could not think about anything but her for quite a while. I recognize and admit that my behavior started changing. I did not want to talk to anyone about it because it only made things worse and made me feel more isolated and alone. Unfortunately, I remembered my experience with marijuana and that it had it helped me relax after my blow up with my father. I stupidly resorted to one last time. As fate would have it- the next day was another random urinalysis and yes, I tested positive for marijuana. After my test came back positive, I was called into my Commander's … office. I do not remember his first name as it has been a few years. He did not ask me anything or to explain myself. He simply stated that I was being administratively discharged. He said I could take the discharge UOTHC or go to court which would mean an automatic jail sentence. Those were my only two options as he said. As I was going through the process of being discharged and out processing; I was informed that whatever benefits I would be entitled to receive would come from my first enlistment as I had completed that one successfully without incident. Captain Smith, however, said that I was a few days short and I missed the "cut". He said the only benefits l could obtain and even apply for were whatever was given to those discharged UOTHC. I was never informed of my right or ability to speak with a counselor of any kind. I was never given an opportunity to speak with a defense lawyer. I was never given the chance to speak with anyone who could help me understand what was happening to me and what my options might have been. I was simply streamlined and tossed out UOTHC, period. There were other servicemembers of my rank who had committed the same offense and had positive urinalysis tests all reporting to the same Commander. One man in particular was a man whose last name was R___. I know this because I worked with him. What really disturbs me and has disturbed me for years is the fact that both Captain S___ and R___ were seen eating together at a local diner and acting as friends. It did not surprise me that R___ was not given a discharge UOTHC. If I had had anyone to tell me my rights or where I could go to speak with someone; I would have raised the issue of unfair and unequal treatment at the time. I hate resorting to saying something like this; but facts are facts. Captain S___ and R___ are white; I am not. Members of the Board, I was treated unfairly because I was never afforded the opportunity to seek counseling of any kind-to include legal counseling. I was never told all my options when l was getting thrown out. As I said, I knew of soldiers that came up positive four or five times and were still allowed to be discharged with a General Discharge and therefore, leave with their veterans' benefits intact. Since I left the Army, I have learned that I should have been offered behavioral health to speak with a counselor considering my lower rank. Members of the Board, I will end as I started this letter. I admit I erred in judgment and in action. I made a mistake. I regret it. I regretted it at the time years ago. I am older and wiser and have learned there are many positive ways to handle stress and upset in life. I was young, naive and depressed. Since I have been a civilian; I have turned myself into a very hard working, productive and successful man. I am an upstanding member of society. I have never been in any trouble of any kind. I have held a steady job and have developed and followed a deep sense of responsibility and duty to myself, my family and my community. However, I am struggling very much. I hear all the time how the Veterans Administration is there to help former Soldiers like me in many ways. I know it has been many years; but injustice is injustice. I never had the courage or the guidance before to seek to lessen what was an overly harsh punishment which has amounted to a life sentence for a relatively minor offense (given society's views). Marijuana in uniform is wrong and I apologize for my weakness at the time. However, I would earnestly ask you to ask yourselves if what I did all those years ago deserves to be so restricting to my life forever after? I am a veteran. I served and all but two of those days I served, I did so diligently, responsibly and honorably. That time deserves to be credited and counted for something. I have medical issues stemming from that period and I need help. If l had only had the chance to talk to someone, I know I would have been the man I am today back then. Please act out of mercy and justice in this case and grant me some relief by allowing me to apply for and obtain basic veterans benefits reflecting my otherwise loyal service to the country. Thank you for your time and kind consideration. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 August 1998. He completed Initial Entry Training (IET) at Fort Benning, Georgia and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman). Upon completion of IET, he was assigned to a unit at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Following a period of continuous honorable service, he reenlisted on 14 December 2000. As a condition of his reenlistment agreement, the applicant completed training for MOS 88M (Motor Transport Specialist), which was awarded as his primary MOS on 7 September 2001. Upon completion of MOS training, he was assigned to a unit at Fort Hood, Texas. 4. A DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document – Drug Testing), dated 7 February 2003, shows the applicant tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary ingredient in marijuana, as the result of a urine specimen collected on 29 January 2003. Of the twelve specimens shown on this document, the applicant’s was the only one that returned a positive result for a controlled substance. The last page of this document shows the applicant had previously tested positive for THC from a specimen collected on 4 February 2001. 5. Although the applicant states he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on each occasion he tested positive for THC, his record is void of any documentation of such punishment. (By regulation, NJP proceedings for Soldiers in pay grade E-4 and below are only directed for filing at the local level.) 6. Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 16 April 2003 for violation of the UCMJ. The DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows he was charged with wrongful use of marijuana, a schedule I controlled substance, on or between 29 December 2002 and 29 January 2003. 7. A Fort Hood (FH) Form 4-50 (Court Martial Charges) shows the applicant’s company, battalion, and brigade level commanders recommended that he be tried by a Special Court-Martial empowered to adjudge a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD). 8. The applicant consulted with legal counsel on or about 16 June 2003 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 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10, for the good of the service. 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. The applicant elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. 9. The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge on 26 June 2003, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, and directed his reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and the issuance of a UOTHC discharge. 10. The applicant was discharged on 29 July 2003, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of court-martial. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged in the lowest enlisted grade and has the following entries in the blocks shown: * Item 18 (Remarks) – Continuous Honorable Active Service: 19980809- 20001213 (indicating from 9 August 1998 through 13 December 2001) * Item 24 – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions * Item 26 – KFS * Item 27 – 4 * Item 28 – In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial 11. The applicant was charged due to the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Subsequent to being charged, he consulted with counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10. Such discharges are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 12. The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. The ADRB considered his request on 24 October 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the ADRB determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of service, prior period of honorable service, and as a result it was inequitable. Accordingly, the ADRB voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. The ADRB further determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 13. The Acting Director, Case Management Division, Army Review Boards Agency, rendered a letter on 2 December 2019, informing the applicant the ADRB had considered his petition and had voted to upgrade the characterization of his discharge. Enclosed with this letter were: * his voided original DD Form 214 (Service-2 copy) * revised versions of the Member-1, Service-2, and Member-4 copies of his corrected DD Form 214, showing his character of service as Under Honorable Conditions (General) 14. Counsel provides a 9-page petition which is available in its entirety for the Board to review. Counsel restates the applicant’s requested relief, describes the applicant’s less than ideal family situation prior to joining the military, a synopsis of his military service and his post-service achievements as a member of society. Counsel contends the applicant’s discharge was improper and inequitable due to the relatively minor nature of his offenses, his otherwise honorable service, and his immaturity at the time. Counsel also contends the applicant’s separation was unjust because: At no time, unlike other enlisted personnel of his rank and time in service, was he offered probation or rehabilitation. This disparity in treatment is a significant but by no means single contention that he was unfairly treated and prejudicially dismissed. [The applicant] was separated from service without full disclosure and warning as to what this could mean for him in the future. He was never advised of his right to seek help or to pursue an Administrative Separation Board given the proposed UOTHC character of his discharge. He was never given the benefit of counsel to advise him what Discharge UOTHC meant to his future nor to request a Conditional Discharge Waiver for a General Discharge. Counsel contends that [The applicant]’s discharge was improper as it failed to comply with procedure and was inequitable as all Soldiers must be notified of their right to an Administrative Separation Board if their characterization of service will be Under Other Thank Honorable. Furthermore, similarly situated enlisted soldiers were not treated nearly as harshly as PVT Howard by the Commanding Officer, who it turns out actually had a personal friendship with one of the others in the unit who "popped" positive on a urinalysis sweep. Several grave injustices exist in this case and can only be adjudicated by this Board which maintains jurisdiction. a. In support of these contentions, counsel cites numerous regulatory provisions that pertain exclusively to involuntary separations, rather than the context of the applicant’s voluntary separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of court-martial. b. Counsel provides Exhibit 4 – a character reference from D_____ wherein she states: To whom it may concern, I have known [The applicant] for 18 years as a friend. I can vouch for him and say that he has been a person of high morals and integrity over the time we have known each other. I can further state [The applicant] has been immensely dedicated to his family and work, a loving person towards friends, and a major contributor back in his community, too. He has been known to be helpful and charitable and is a much-loved person by all. He is a person of honor, honesty, and integrity. c. Counsel provides Exhibit 5 – Character Reference from D_____ wherein he states: To whom it may concern, I am writing to tell you of the many fine qualities of [The applicant], whom I have known for 20 years through our time serving in [the] Army together when I joined back in 2001. He was the first person that greeted me with kindness and a sense of responsibility and was a major contributor to my transition into the active military at my very first unit as an 18-year-old kid from Alabama in a new state knowing no one there. He made a very good first impression and we’ve been brothers and brother in arms ever since. I have had the chance to get to know [The applicant], and I say without a doubt that you are dealing with a person of very good moral character [and] a major contributor to his community. [The applicant] operates with integrity, honesty, honor and never has a bad word to say about anyone. He is also hard working and dedicated, and never leaves a job unfinished. On a personal level, may I just say that I really like [The applicant], and I have no doubts about his abilities to succeed in the future. 15. The Board should consider the applicant's statement in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. Boards are to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on mental health conditions, including PTSD. The veteran’s testimony alone, oral or written, may establish the existence of a condition or experience, that the condition or experience existed during or was aggravated by military service, and that the condition or experience excuses or mitigates the discharge. 16. MEDICAL REVIEW: The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) psychologist was asked to review this request. Documentation reviewed includes the application and supporting documentation and the applicant's military service records. The VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), was also reviewed. a. JLV did not indicate any service connected disabilities. A Behavioral Health Initial Visit Consult, dated 7 January 2022, indicated, “Presenting Problem: depression secondary to lack of success in relationships, isolation from his family of origin with sister and father with cancer.” The Problem List included Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood (8 December 2021) and Sleep Apnea, Unspecified (4 October 2021). b. Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency psychologist there is insufficient evidence to support the presence of any behavioral health conditions which led to his discharge. No medical records supporting the presence of significant psychological symptoms or diagnoses during his time in service were provided for review. That said, the ARBA psychologist will gladly revisit the applicant’s request should he, in the future, submit medical documentation of any behavioral health condition(s) related to his military service. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical review, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct, and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the applicant's behavioral health claim and the review and conclusions of the ARBA psychologist. A majority of the Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official regarding there being insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that his misconduct was mitigated by a behavioral health condition. Based on a preponderance of evidence, a majority of the Board determined the character of service the applicant received after an upgrade by the ADRB and the reason for his separation are not in error or unjust. 2. The member in the minority found that the applicant's chain of command had the option to administratively separate the applicant for misconduct instead of preferring court-martial charges against him, and found that separation for misconduct would have been the more equitable option. The member in the minority determined the applicant's inequitable treatment can only be resolved by upgrading his character of service to honorable and changing the reason for his separation to "Secretarial authority" with the codes applicable to that authority. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 :XX : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : :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, USC, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the separation codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the separation code of "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial." The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned separation code "KFS" will be assigned RE code "4." 3. Army Regulation 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. 4. The Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs), on 3 September 2014 [Hagel Memorandum], to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 5. The Acting Principle Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) provided clarifying guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 24 February 2016 [Carson Memorandum]. The memorandum directed the BCM/NRs to waive the statute of limitations. Fairness and equity demand, in cases of such magnitude that a Veteran's petition receives full and fair review, even if brought outside of the time limit. Similarly, cases considered previously, either by DRBs or BCM/NRs, but without benefit of the application of the Supplemental Guidance, shall be, upon petition, granted de novo review utilizing the Supplemental Guidance. 6. The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) provided clarifying guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 August 2017 [Kurta Memorandum]. The memorandum directed them to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD, traumatic brain injury (TBI), sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Standards for review should rightly consider the unique nature of these cases and afford each Veteran a reasonable opportunity for relief even if the sexual assault or sexual harassment was unreported, or the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years later. Boards are to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge. a. Guidance documents are not limited to UOTHC discharge characterizations but rather apply to any petition seeking discharge relief including requests to change the narrative reason, re-enlistment codes, and upgrades from general to honorable characterizations. b. An honorable discharge characterization does not require flawless military service. Many veterans are separated with an honorable characterization despite some relatively minor or infrequent misconduct. c. Liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade. Relief may be appropriate, however, for minor misconduct commonly associated with mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; or behaviors commonly associated with sexual assault or sexual harassment; and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances. 7. The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) issued guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 July 2018 [Wilkie Memorandum], 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) AR20210011856 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210011856 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210011856 1