IN THE CASE OF:  

BOARD DATE:  6 April 2022

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20210016453


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  An upgrade of his characterization of service from general, 
under honorable conditions to fully honorable.  Additionally, he requests that his 
separation code and narrative reason for separation be changed to reflect a more 
favorable discharge.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 293 (application for the Review of Discharge) in lieu of DD Form 149 
(Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Sworn Statement 
*	Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Statements in Support of Claim x3
*	VA Document Outlining his Submissions
*	Letter/Amendment of Previous Statement
*	Personnel Qualification Record
*	Letters of Appreciation x4
*	Diplomas x4
*	Army Achievement Medal Certificate
*	Enlistment Contracts x3
*	Character References x2
*	VA Document,)
*	VA Administrative Decision
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
*	Worksheet

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United 
States Code (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 stated he did not commit the misconduct that he was accused of, but 
he was not given the opportunity to go before a court-martial even though he requested 
it.  His performance was exemplary prior to this, but he believes he was treated unfairly.  
He has submitted evidence from his record and VA claim for PTSD.  His PTSD was 
caused by this event.  The VA considers his PTSD not to have been incurred in the line 
of duty.  But, he did not commit this offense and he is requesting his character of 
service, separation code, and narrative reason for separation be changed.

3.  He provided in support of his request:

     a.  A Sworn Statement, dated 9 December 1986, wherein the applicant stated on 
1 November 1986, he did not have sexual intercourse with.  He also stated that Private 
E had never called him at his residence and he never performed any nonprofessional 
acts with her.

      b.  Three VA Statements in Support of Claim, where in the applicant stated:

            (1)  During his sessions, he discussed with his therapist that his biggest sticking 
points were his discharge from the Army and his PTSD.

           (2)  He disagreed with the VA’s decision contending that his PTSD was caused 
by his own willful misconduct.  When he was separated from the Army, the Chapter 14 
Board was selected by Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) .  The board recorder was biased 
against him and the proceedings were not fair.  This was because he wanted a court-
martial, not an Article 15 and that made LTC extremely angry.  During the board 
proceedings, fabricated evidence was used against him.  The trainee that accused him 
of an improper relationship did not want to be in the Army.  She made false accusations 
and ended up getting separated from the Army prior to completion of advanced 
individual training (AIT).  He has enclosed his sworn statement from 1986 as well as 
character references that include favorable opinions of his performance.  He is asking 
that the Board consider his PTSD to be in the line of duty.

           (3)  While a drill instructor at Fort McClellan, AL, he was wrongfully accused of 
fraternization.  His Battalion Commander, LTC used his power and military resources to 
get him separated from the military.  He fully cooperated with the investigators and his 
commander stated that he would do everything in his power to clear him.  The 
commander stated he knew it would be an up-hill battle because the battalion 
commander did not like the applicant.  He asked his company commander why the 
battalion commander didn't like him and the commander stated because he was an 
infantryman and not a military policeman.  The battalion commander believed that he 
belonged at Fort Benning, GA and not at Fort McClellan, AL.  The applicant believes 
that he was used as a scape goat.

           (4)  When he refused to sign an Article 15 and asked for a court-martial the 
battalion commander got real mad and physically pushed him out of his office.  If it had 
not been for the command sergeant major, he believes the battalion commander would 
have physically assaulted him.  Time passed and he thought he was going to be 
transferred to Fort Benning, GA.  Instead, he was informed that he was going before a 
separation board.

     c.  An undated, letter/Amendment from Mr., the spouse of the private alleging she 
had intercourse with the applicant.  Mr. states he wants to correct his previous 
statement.  He received two phone calls from Captain pertaining to the case involving 
the applicant.  During these conversations Captain asked him many questions and 
persuaded him to write the previous letter (not available).  Some statements he made in 
the previous letter were not true.  The contents of the letter dated 10 February 1987 
were merely things Captain told him about during the phone conversation and insisted 
that they be included in the letter.  He has since learned that it was his wife's younger 
brother who rode with her to Fort McPherson during her 10 days leave after AIT during 
the last part of August 1986.  As far as the baby is concerned, he cannot be one 
hundred percent it is his or the applicant’s. · His main reason for writing the letter was to 
try and get his wife out of the military so they can be a happily married couple again.  
He had also been contacted numerous times by First Lieutenant (1LT) who claimed to 
be a lawyer for the Army.  1LT wanted him to write a statement about how it all began, 
but he has been informed that 1LT is a recorder on the case, therefore, he feels 1LT 
cannot be trusted to give him pertinent facts concerning this case.  He would like to say, 
he is sorry for the confusion and hopes and prays no damage has been done to his wife 
or the applicant.

      d.  Two-character references:

            (1)  Sergeant First Class stated he served as the applicant’s senior drill sergeant 
during the period January through July 1986.  During that time, he observed the 
applicant’s performance on a daily basis in the stressful training environment and the 
applicant was one of the finest drill sergeants in the battalion.  He was fit, reliable, and 
especially strong in the mastery of Soldierly skills.  Units were measured by their 
success rates for critical areas, mainly rifle qualification, end-of-cycle testing, and the 
Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).  The applicant as the unit's Master Fitness Trainer 
was instrumental in the company’s excellent performance on the APFT.  He devoted 
numerous hours to remedial training for the privates, and his efforts paid off.  Similarly, 
His skills as a marksmanship and military skills instructor helped the unit to exceed 
training brigade goals on M16 Rifle qualifications.  The applicant is a fine Soldier and 
noncommissioned officer, and he would be a credit to any Reserve or National Guard 
organization.

             (2)  Sergeant Major (SGM) (Retired) stated during the past few months he had 
the pleasure of working with the applicant on a daily basis.  Throughout this period the 
applicant was the epitome of a Soldier in both appearance and conduct.  His 
professionalism in dealing with the civilian work force had been outstanding.  He was 
aware of his current difficulties and strongly believed his retention potential and 
motivation to be an asset to the military.  Even during this trying period of his service, he 
maintained his loyalty to the Army.  SGM requested that maximum consideration be 
given by the separation board to retain the applicant in the military.  

      e.  A VA, Sioux-Falls Healthcare System document, showing a diagnosis of:  
Primary (focus of treatment):  Trauma/Stressor- Related Disorder, Other Specified -
Other reactions to severe stress (ICD-10-CM F43.8).
Secondary (if applicable):  Binge-Eating Disorder (ICD-10 - CM F50.81.  The available 
evidence shows he was currently receiving mental health treatment at the Sioux Falls 
VA Medical Center.

      f.  A VA Administrative Decision, dated 24 August 2020 showing:

           (1)  Issue:  Willful misconduct determination for entitlement to PTSD.

           (2)  VA Form 21-0781 a, Statement in Support of Claim for PTSD Secondary to 
Personal Assault received 9 January 2020.

           (3)  It was determined that all injuries related to the incident in question are 
deemed to have not been incurred in the line of duty.  Specifically, entitlement to PTSD 
is denied because the evidence of record demonstrates his discharge from the United 
States Army was a direct result of willful misconduct attributable to having a 
nonprofessional relationship with a female trainee, and violation of Article 134, Adultery.

4.  The applicant completed honorable Regular Army (RA) service from 14 May 1980 to 
14 May 1984.  On 15 May 1984, he reenlisted in the RA, for 4 years, in the rank of 
sergeant/pay grade E-5.  He held military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B 
(Infantryman).

5.  On 12 November 1986, an investigating officer was appointed to conduct an informal 
investigation into allegations of fraternization in Company B, 40th Military Police 
Battalion, Fort McClellan, AL.  The investigating officer was to determine if any 
wrongdoing occurred and whether there had been violations of Army Regulations, or 
procedures established by Fort McClellan, or the Training Brigade.

6.  A Commander's Informal Inquiry, dated 18 November 1986, shows the investigating 
officer obtained a sworn statement from:

       a.  Private (PVT) , dated 13 November 1986, wherein she indicated that she and 
the applicant engaged in sexual intercourse on the night of 10 November 1986.  She 
and the applicant firmed up their plans to meet while sitting in the dayroom at 
approximately 2100 hours.  The applicant told her to go to his truck at 2330 hours, get 
his sleeping bag, and wait for him nearby.  PVT was re-interviewed on 
14 November 1986 and in a sworn statement she indicated that she and the applicant 
also engaged in sexual intercourse on 1 November 1986, in the 3rd platoon cadre 
office.

      b.  PVT stating that PVT entered the 2nd platoon bay at approximately 0020 hours 
on 11 November 1986 and confessed to having been with the applicant “in the bushes.”  
PVT further stated that while they were talking, PVT removed her bra and panties from 
her sweatshirt pocket and proceeded to put them on.

      c.  PVT and an oral statement from PVT, PVT, PVT, and PVT establishing the 
applicant and PVT were seen sitting together in the dark in the
B Company Dayroom at approximately 2100 hours.  It was further verified that PVT was 
over-heard the next day by the above individuals bragging about having had intercourse 
with the applicant.

      d.  PVT , dated 14 November 1986, stating according to PVT E she and Drill 
Sergeant (DS) had talked about the on-going investigation and that DS assured her he 
would call the applicant and pass on her story so that when the applicant was 
questioned, he would be on the same track.

      e.  DS was interviewed, after waiving his rights to counsel.  He indicated that he 
knew nothing of any involvement between the applicant and PVTE and that he had not 
conspired with PVT to develop and pass along a story to the applicant to help cover up 
fraternization.

      f.  On 14 November 1986, the applicant was interviewed, at which time, he refused 
to waive his rights and requested a lawyer.

      g.  Recommendations:

          (1)  Based on the conversation with Major (MAJ), there was enough here for, at a 
minimum, a formal Letter of Reprimand and removal from the Drill Sergeant Program for 
the applicant.  This is based on PVT statements and his "unexplained absence" on the 
evening of 10 November 1986.  

          (2) “I got no impression and could not substantiate any fraternization involving DS 
.”  However, it could be established that DS knew the applicant and PVT behavior was 
not that of a DS to PVT.  This is done through PVTstatement.  Further, “I believe he 
may have at least planned to cover up for the applicant.”  “I recommend at least a Letter 
of Concern.”

          (3)  Recommend that PVT be considered for elimination from the service.
Her conduct has not been in keeping with the highest moral standards needed in 
today's Army.

7.  On 22 December 1986, he was accused of violating Article 92 of the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (UCMJ), by failing to obey a lawful general regulation and engaging in 
an unprofessional social relationship with a private, a female trainee, by engaging in 
sexual activity with the private.  He declined to accept nonjudicial punishment (NJP) 
under Article 15, of the UCMJ, and demanded a trial by court-martial.

8.  On 9 February 1987, the applicant was notified of his removal from the Drill Sergeant 
Career Development Program, due to failure to maintain high standards of conduct and 
professionalism by engaging in a nonprofessional social relationship with a female initial 
entry training (IET) Soldier.  He was also advised that this removal was adverse in 
nature.  The Drill Sergeant Identification Badge and the SQI would be removed.  A copy 
of this letter would be filed in the permanent portion of his Military Personnel Records 
Jacket and Official Military Personnel File.

9.  On 24 February 1987, the applicant's commander counseled him and advised him of 
his intent to separate him under, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations 
– Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14-12c, for commission of a serious offense, with a 
general discharge.  The specific reasons cited are:  His removal from the Drill Sergeant 
Career Development Program for failure to maintain high standards of conduct and 
professionalism by engaging in a nonprofessional social relationship with a female IET 
Soldier.  He also established a pattern of misconduct which was prejudicial to the good 
order and discipline of the Army by wrongfully having sexual intercourse with a married 
woman not his wife, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.

10.  On 3 March 1987, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's intent to 
separate him and signed his election of rights.  He consulted with counsel, and 
requested consideration of his case by an administration separation board and a 
personal appearance before an administrative separation board.  He acknowledged he 
understood he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if his 
character of service was less than honorable.  He acknowledged he understood he 
could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State 
laws and he understand if he received a discharge/character of service which was less 
than honorable, he could make application to the Army Discharge Review Board 
(ADRB) or the ABCMR for an upgrade.  However, he realized that an act of 
consideration by either board did not imply his discharge would be upgraded.  He 
declined to submit statements in his own behalf.
11.  The applicant’s immediate and intermediate commanders recommended separation 
under AR 635-200, chapter 14-12c, for commission of a serious offense. 

12.  On 18 March 1987, the applicant was notified to appear before an Administrative 
Separation Board on 27 March 1987.  

13.  The applicant was notified of the delay of the Administrative Separation Board 
twice.  The final date for the board to convene was 2 April 1987.

14.  On 31 March 1987, the Defense Counsel challenged for Cause for the following 
reasons:  

       a.  On 27 March 1987, during his conversation with MAJ he was told the applicant 
had been in contact with a possible witness, PVT   

       b.  1LT related to MAJ that PVT was unwilling to give 1LT a statement against the 
applicant.  1LT related to MAJ that he believed PVT was covering up something 
because she refused to sign an untruthful statement written by 1LT .  MAJ statement 
implied that he already believed that either he or the applicant were obstructing justice.  
This belief was untrue and had no evidentiary basis.

       c.  1LT had tainted MAJ perception of the evidence in ex-parte communications.  At 
this time counsel for the respondent did not know the extent of these conversations and 
their effect on the board.  The respondent or his counsel must be present when items of 
evidence are discussed.  Clearly, these actions by 1LT were improper.

       d.  MAJ recently participated as the 15-6 Investigating Officer in an investigation 
that focused on “Company B, 3/48th Infantry Battalion.”  On 26 January 1987, he 
submitted his findings and recommendations.  This investigation involved five drill 
sergeants who were suspected of violations of Fort McClellan Regulation 632-1.  
Although the applicant’s case lacked the substantive evidence that was present in at 
least one of the cases MAJ investigated, his personal involvement could very well affect 
his impartiality.  Additionally, over the past 5 months, at least six drill sergeants from 
MAJ battalion had been relieved from duty.  As the executive officer he had become 
personally involved.  Human nature alone dictated that one cannot impartially act on 
such a personal matter.

       e.  This request is made in accordance with AR 15-6, paragraph 5-7.

       f.  The applicant was entitled to a fair and impartial Administrative Board.  As 
counsel for the respondent, it was his duty to ensure that each member did not have a 
preconceived ideas regarding the pending action.  The career and future of a young 
man was at stake; therefore fairness must be upheld.

15.  On 1 April 1987, MAJ was appointed as president of the chapter 14 Board and MAJ  
was removed, due to the challenge for cause. 

16.  On 2 April 1987, the Administrative Separation Board convened at Fort
McClellan.  The applicant appeared with counsel.  The proceedings show the Board 
carefully considered the evidence before it and found:

       a.  The applicant participated in a nonprofessional social relationship with a female 
IET Soldier, and engaged in sexual intercourse with a married woman not his wife.

       b.  The applicant was undesirable for further retention in the military because of a 
pattern of serious misconduct bringing discredit upon the U.S. Army.

       c.  Rehabilitation was not deemed possible.

17.  On 10 April 1987, the approval authority, approved the separation action in 
accordance with chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for commission of a 
serious offense with a General Discharge Certificate.

18.  Accordingly, on 22 April 1987, he was discharged.  He completed 6 years, 
11 months, and 9 days of net active service.  This service included honorable service 
from 14 May 1980 to 14 May 1984.  He was authorized or awarded the Army Service 
Ribbon, Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge (M-16) Rifle, Sharpshooter 
Marksmanship Qualification Badge (Hand Grenade), Overseas Service Ribbon, Army 
Achievement Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award), Noncommissioned 
Officer Professional Development Ribbon, Expert Infantryman Badge, and Parachutist 
Badge.  His DD Form 214 also shows in:

*	Remarks, immediate reenlistments this period “800514-840514”
*	Character of Service, “Under Honorable Conditions, General”
*	Separation Authority, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c 
*	Separation Code, “JKQ”
*	Reenlistment Code, “RE-3”
*	Narrative Reason for Separation, “Misconduct-Commission of a Serious Offense”

19.  AR 635-200, chapter 14 established policy and prescribed procedures for 
separating members for misconduct.  Action was to be to separate a Soldier for 
misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or 
unlikely to succeed.  Paragraph 14-12c applied to Soldiers who committed a serious 
military or civilian offense, when required by the specific circumstances warrant 
separation and a punitive discharge was, or could be authorized for that same or 
relatively similar offense under the UCMJ.  

20.  In support of his application, the applicant provided the Board several statements, 
Letters of Appreciation, and certificates of training reflective of his service 
accomplishments.  These submissions included the following VA documents.  The 
Board was provided the applicant’s submissions in its entirety.  

21.  VA Document, , showing a diagnosis of:  Trauma/Stressor- Related Disorder, Other 
Specified -Other reactions to severe stress and Binge-Eating Disorder.  The available 
evidence shows he was currently receiving mental health treatment at the Veterans 
Affairs Medical Center.

22. A VA Administrative Decision, dated 24 August 2020, showing willful misconduct 
determination for entitlement to PTSD.  

     a.  VA Form 21-0781 a, Statement in Support of Claim for PTSD Secondary to 
Personal Assault received on 9 January 2020.

     b.  It was determined that all injuries related to the incident in question were deemed 
to have not been incurred in the line of duty.  Specifically, entitlement to PTSD was 
denied because the evidence of record demonstrated his discharge from the United 
States Army was a direct result of willful misconduct attributable to having a 
nonprofessional relationship with a female trainee, and violation of Article 134, Adultery.

23.  The applicant contends he did not commit the misconduct that he was accused of 
and he was not given the opportunity to go before a court-martial, even though he 
requested it.  His performance was always exemplary and he believes he was treated 
unfairly.  He has PTSD that was caused by his discharge event.  The VA considers this 
not to have been incurred in the line of duty.  He did not commit this offense and he is 
requesting his character of service, separation code, and narrative reason for 
separation be changed.

24.  The available evidence shows the applicant was discharged under AR 635-200, 
chapter 14-12c, as a result of an Administrative Separation Board, for participating in a 
nonprofessional social relationship with a female IET Soldier, and engaging in sexual 
intercourse with a married woman not his wife.  He completed 6 years, 11 months, and 
9 days of net active service.  This service included honorable service from 14 May 1980 
to 14 May 1984.  

25.  The applicant’s narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct-Commission of a 
Serious Offense,” SPD code of “JKQ,” and RE code of “3” are appropriate based on his 

reason for discharge from active duty under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 
14-12c.  

26.  His honorable service is addressed in the Administrative Notes section of this 
Record of Proceedings.

27.  In reaching its determination, the Board should consider the applicant’s 
contentions, submissions, and his allegation of PTSD, along with his military service 
record, in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination 
guidance.  

28.  MEDICAL REVIEW:    

The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting discharge upgrade contending that 
the misconduct leading to his Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge was due 
to PTSD he developed while on active duty.
    a.  The Agency psychologist was asked by the ABCMR to review this request. 
Documentation reviewed includes the applicant’s completed DD149 and supporting 
documentation and his military separation packet. The VA electronic medical record, 
Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) was also reviewed. The military electronic medical record 
(AHLTA) was not reviewed as it was not in use during his time in service. No hard copy 
military medical records or civilian medical documentation was provided for review. 
    b.  Review of the applicant’s military documentation indicates that he enlisted in the 
Army Reserve (Delayed Entry Program) on 01 May 1980 and subsequently transferred 
to the Regular Army on 14 May 1980. He reenlisted in the Regular Army on 15 May 
1984. During his military career, he was assigned overseas to rom 08 Feb 1982 - 13 
Aug 1984. During his service, his awards included the Army Achievement Medal, Army 
Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award), Army Service Ribbon and Parachutist Badge. His job 
position was as an Infantryman and Drill Instructor. He received a General Counseling 
Form, dated 24 Feb 1987 indicating, “nonprofessional social relations with a female IET 
soldier…having unlawful sexual relationship which resulted in a pregnancy with a 
female soldier who was married.” He also received an Article 15 for the same offense, 
“engaging in nonprofessional relationship with PV2…a female trainee, by engaging in 
sexual activity” (11 Nov 1986). He was removed from the Drill Sergeant Career 
Development Program (05 Mar 1987) and recommended for discharge due to the same 
offense. A Summary of Proceedings, Verbatim Findings and Recommendations from 
appointed board, Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Brigade, Fort McClellan, AL, dated 
02 Apr 1987 noted, “SSG Rosenbaum participated in a nonprofessional social 
relationship with a female Initial Entry Training soldier, and engaged in sexual 
intercourse with a married woman not his wife.” He received an Under Honorable 
Conditions (General) discharge on 22 Apr 1987 with narrative reason, Misconduct – 
commission of a serious offense. He enlisted in the National Guard on 04 Jul 1989 and 
received an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge on 15 Apr 1998 with 
narrative reason for discharge, Unsatisfactory Participation. He subsequently was 
honorably discharged from the Army Reserve on 12 Oct 1999.  
    c.  The VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) did indicate a 40% 
service connected disability with Tinnitus 10%, Limited Extension of Knee 10% x2, 
Limited Motion of Ankle 10% and Limited Flexion of Knee 10%. A Psychology Consult, 
dated 14 Aug 2019 indicated, “veteran reported that his primary issues are related to 
anxiety stressor symptoms related to a fatality accident that occurred to his friend while 
deep sea fishing. He also noted that…I’m an overeater…and noted he struggles to 
make lifestyle changes…he reported worrying about a number of different topics, 
nightmares about his friend’s death, difficulty controlling or stopping his worry, feeling 
afraid something awful might happen, and feeling anxious.” The psychologist diagnosed 
him with Anxiety Disorder, Unspecified and Trauma or Stressor-Related Disorder, 
Unspecified. The Problem List included Binge Eating Disorder (29 Aug 2019), Other 
Specified Anxiety Disorder (10 Jul 2019) and Sleep Apnea (10 Jul 2019).  
 
    d.  Based on the information in the applicant’s medical record, it is the opinion of the 
Agency psychologist that there are no mitigating Behavioral Health conditions. 
Problems arising from trauma and stressor-related symptoms often contribute to self-
isolation, anger outbursts, aggressive behavior, intrusive memories, nightmares, 
interpersonal difficulties, poor sleep and self-medication with drugs/alcohol.  
Improper and unlawful (UCMJ) sexual relations with an entry level, married soldier is not 
part of the natural history or sequelae of trauma and stressor-related symptoms, or 
other behavioral health conditions, and, as such, is not mitigated under Liberal 
Consideration.


BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that 
relief was not 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, available military 
records and medical review, the Board concurred with the medical opinion finding no 
mitigating Behavioral Health conditions. The Board noted that problems arising from 
trauma and stressor-related symptoms often contribute to self-isolation, anger 
outbursts, aggressive behavior, intrusive memories, nightmares, interpersonal 
difficulties, poor sleep and self-medication with drugs/alcohol. The Board agreed that 
improper and unlawful (UCMJ) sexual relations with an entry level, married soldier is not 
part of the natural history or sequelae of trauma and stressor-related symptoms, or 
other behavioral health conditions, and, as such, is not mitigated under Liberal 
Consideration. Based on this, the Board denied relief.

2.  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

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

X	X	X	DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

Except for the correction addressed in Administrative Note(s) below, the Board found 
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.



ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):

1.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations – Separation Documents) for 
Soldiers who have previously reenlisted without being issued a DD Form 214 and who 
are later separated with any characterization of service except “honorable,” enter, in 
Remarks, “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM” (first day of service 
which DD Form 214 was not issued) UNTIL (date before commencement of current 
enlistment).  Then enter the specific periods of reenlistments as prescribed above. 

2.  As a result amend item 18 (Remarks) of his DD Form 214 by adding the following 
entry “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 19800514 – 19840514.”  


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.  AR 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), 
reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on 
the DD Form 214.  The SPD code “JKQ” is the appropriate code to assign Soldiers 
separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14-12c, by reason of 
misconduct (serious offense).  

3.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table stipulates the RE code of “3” would be 
assigned to members separated with the SPD code of “JKQ.” 

4.  AR 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility 
criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the RA and the 
USAR.  Table 3-1 includes a list of the RA RE codes: 

     a.  RE-1 applies to Soldiers completing their term of active service who are 
considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army.  They are qualified for enlistment if all 
other criteria are met. 

     b.  RE-3 applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or 
continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable.  They are 
ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 

5.  AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), in effect at the time, 
set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It provides: 

     a.  An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to 
benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the 
quality of the member's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and 
performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other 
characterization would be clearly inappropriate. 

     b.  Chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct) established policy and prescribed 
procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Action was to be to separate a 
Soldier for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was 
impracticable or unlikely to succeed.  Paragraph 14-12c (Commission of a Serious 
Offense) applied to Soldiers who committed a serious military or civilian offense, when 
required by the specific circumstances warrant separation and a punitive discharge was, 
or could be authorized for that same or relatively similar offense under the UCMJ.  

6.  On 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge 
Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 
(BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical 
considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former 
service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions 
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.

7.  On 25 August 2017 the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs 
and BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their 
discharges due in whole or in part 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.   

8.  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.

      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, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, 
sworn testimony (to include that provided by an applicant), 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)	AR20210016453


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1