70.9—Discharge review standards.
(a) Objective of review.
The objective of a discharge review is to examine the propriety and equity of the applicant's discharge and to effect changes, if necessary. The standards of review and the underlying factors that aid in determining whether the standards are met shall be historically consistent with criteria for determining honorable service. No factors shall be established that require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge. Neither a DRB nor the Secretary of the Military Department concerned shall be bound by any methodology of weighting of the factors in reaching a determination. In each case, the DRB or the Secretary of the Military Department concerned shall give full, fair, and impartial considerations to all applicable factors before reaching a decision. An applicant may not rceive a less favorable discharge than that issued at the time of separation. This does not preclude correction of clerical errors.
(b) Propriety.
(1)
A discharge shall be deemed proper unless, in the course of discharge review, it is determined that:
(i)
There exists an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion associated with the discharge at the time of issuance; and that the rights of the applicant were prejudiced thereby (such error shall constitute prejudicial error if there is substantial doubt that the discharge would have remained the same if the error had not been made); or
(ii)
A change in policy by the Military Service of which the applicant was a member, made expressly retroactive to the type of discharge under consideration, requires a change in the discharge.
(2)
When a record associated with the discharge at the time of issuance involves a matter in which the primary responsibility for corrective action rests with another organization (for example, another Board, agency, or court), the DRB will recognize an error only to the extent that the error has been corrected by the organization with primary responsibility for correcting the record.
(3)
The primary function of the DRB is to exercise its discretion on issues of equity by reviewing the individual merits of each application on a case-by-case basis. Prior decisions in which the DRB exercised its discretion to change a discharge based on issues of equity (including the factors cited in such decisions or the weight given to factors in such decisions) do not bind the DRB in its review of subsequent cases because no two cases present the same issues of equity.
(4)
The following applies to applicants who received less than fully Honorable administrative discharges because of their civilian misconduct while in an inactive reserve component and who were discharged or had their discharge reviewed on or after April 20, 1971: the DRB shall either recharacterize the discharge to Honorable without any additional proceedings or additional proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Court's Order of December 3, 1981, in Wood v. Secretary of Defense to determine whether proper grounds exist for the issuance of a less than Honorable discharge, taking into account that;
(i)
An Other than Honorable (formerly undesirable) Discharge for an inactive reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to have affected directly the performance of military duties;
(ii)
A General Discharge for an inactive reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to have had an adverse impact on the overall effectiveness of the military, including military morale and efficiency.
(1)
In the course of a discharge review, it is determined that the policies and procedures under which the applicant was discharged differ in material respects from policies and procedures currently applicable on a Service-wide basis to discharges of the type under consideration provided that:
(i)
Current policies or procedures represent a substantial enhancement of the rights afforded a respondent in such proceedings; and
(ii)
There is substantial doubt that the applicant would have received the same discharge if relevant current policies and procedures had been available to the applicant at the time of the discharge proceedings under consideration.
(2)
At the time of issuance, the discharge was inconsistent with standards of discipline in the Military Service of which the applicant was a member.
(3)
In the course of a discharge review, it is determined that relief is warranted based upon consideration of the applicant's service record and other evidence presented to the DRB viewed in conjunction with the factors listed in this section and the regulations under which the applicant was discharged, even though the discharge was determined to have been otherwise equitable and proper at the time of issuance. Areas of consideration include, but are not limited to:
(A)
Service history, including date of enlistment, period of enlistment, highest rank achieved, conduct or efficiency ratings (numerical or narrative);
(H)
Other acts of merit that may not have resulted in a formal recognition through an award or commendation;
(J)
Prior military service and type of discharge received or outstanding postservice conduct to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the applicant during the period of service which is the subject of the discharge review;
(M)
Convictions by civil authorities while a member of the Service, reflected in the discharge proceedings or otherwise noted in military service records;
(A) Total capabilities.
This includes an evaluation of matters, such as age, educational level, and aptitude scores. Consideration may also be given whether the individual met normal military standards of acceptability for military service and similar indicators of an individual's ability to serve satisfactorily, as well as ability to adjust to military service.
(B) Family and Personal Problems.
This includes matters in extenuation or mitigation of the reason for discharge that may have affected the applicant's ability to serve satisfactorily.
(C) Arbitrary or capricious action.
This includes actions by individuals in authority that constitute a clear abuse of such authority and that, although not amounting to prejudicial error, may have contributed to the decision to discharge or to the characterization of service.