IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003250 BOARD VOTE: _____X____ ___X____ ____X____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003250 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant amendment of the ABCMR’s decision in Docket Number AR20130015616, dated 22 May 2014. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by affording him clemency by removing his bad conduct discharge and substituting therefor a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. ______________X___________ CHAIRPERSON 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003250 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous requests for an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to an honorable discharge or a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He also requests a personal appearance before the Board. 2. The applicant defers his statement and evidence to his counsel. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel requests reconsideration of the applicant's two previous requests for an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge. He also requests that the applicant be granted a personal appearance hearing before the Board. 2. Counsel states, in effect, he is providing a new argument and new evidence that were not previously considered, 3. Counsel provides: * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) * DA Form 20B (Insert Sheet to DA Form 20 - Record of Court-Martial Conviction) * page 1 of Standard Form (SF) 89 (Report of Medical History), dated 6 February 1967 * copy of the applicant's military records obtained from the National Personnel Records Center, with various documents dated between 16 February 1967 and 14 December 1992 * two pages of SF 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated between 12 February 1968 and 23 June 1968 * 13 page report [title illegible] of Company E, Long Range Patrol (LRP). 20th Infantry (Airborne), Vietnam, dated 6 April 1968 * U.S. Army Judiciary, Office of The Judge Advocate General of the Army, Board of Review, dated 17 December 1968 * 129 page report titled, "Department of Defense (DOD) Report of the Task Force on the Administration of Military Justice in the Armed Forces," dated 30 November 1972 * Civil Liberties article titled, Battleground: Race in Viet Nam, dated February 1973 * DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 9 May 1983 * a page from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office, Cleveland, OH, dated 23 May 1984 * VA Form 21-526 (Veteran's Application for Compensation or Pension), dated 8 July 1992 * psychological evaluation, dated 3 March 2013 * correspondence from the office of Senator S, dated 14 May 2013 * psychological assessment, dated 28 June 2013 * notarized statement from the applicant, dated 5 August 2013 * notarized statement from the applicant's cousin, Mr. LP, dated 9 August 2013 * notarized statement from the applicant's brother, Mr. WS, dated 15 August 2013 * notarized statement from the applicant's sister, Ms. MLS, dated 9 September 2013 * notarized statement from a former Soldier who served with the applicant, Mr. MEP, dated 21 October 2013 * notarized statement from U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Major (Retired) HBS, dated 26 November 2013 * memorandum by the Secretary of Defense, dated 3 September 2014 * statement of support, dated 8 December 2014 * statement of support, dated 27 January 2015 * VA Transcript of Hearing Before the Board of Veteran's Appeals, dated 10 February 2015 * a letter to the applicant from the VA, dated 12 March 2015 * a page titled, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 138, undated * statement from the applicant, undated * photograph of the applicant and other Soldiers in Vietnam, undated CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20120003864 on 23 August 2012, and AR20130015616 on 22 May 2014. 2. The applicant provides new argument and documentation not previously considered by the Board. As a new argument, counsel states: * the applicant's request for an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge warrants reconsideration based on the 3 September 2014 memorandum issued by the Secretary of Defense * the memorandum directed military agencies to reconsider all applications for upgrades of discharges based on the presence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the time of discharge 3. As new evidence, counsel provides: a. Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments, dated 3 September 2014, subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/ Naval Records (BCM/NR) Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD. b. A letter of support, dated 8 December 2014, wherein Dr. WDB, PhD, a licensed psychologist, stated: (1) The applicant was discharged from the Army with a bad conduct discharge in 1969 after serving 9 months in combat in Vietnam. He served an additional 1 year in Fort Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks because he refused an order in Vietnam. He has worked with the applicant since February 2013 who has a diagnosis of PTSD. He suffers from anger, tension, and nightmares related to his military service and the discrimination he suffered in the Army. (2) After 16 sessions, he is convinced the applicant was suffering from acute stress while in Vietnam when he refused to follow an order and was imprisoned. He had already undergone 9 months of combat and multiple traumas when he was given an order. He had asked repeatedly, "why am I being singled out and what did I do?" (3) The applicant had followed orders just months earlier to fire his weapon at night, thus giving away the unit position in the jungles of Vietnam. He had followed the orders of a young officer when he was told to fire on a young man, and he had followed orders when his unit was split apart after an airdrop in the jungles of Vietnam. Is it any wonder he asked questions when given another order? (4) He concludes his statement by recommending the applicant’s discharge be upgraded based on the sacrifices made by the applicant in Vietnam. c. A statement, dated 27 January 2015, wherein Dr. JC, MD, a medical doctor stated: (1) The applicant is a 69 year old patient of his and had been for many years. He clearly has had, and continues to experience, problems due to PTSD that started while in Vietnam. He has tried different medications to help the applicant cope with his episodes of anger/stress but the medications have helped very little. (2) He reviewed the psychological assessments provided by two different psychologists. After interacting with the applicant, he entirely agrees with the evaluations. Therefore, more likely than not, his PTSD developed during his service in Vietnam and played a direct role in his misconduct during that time. (3) The applicant also experiences shortness of breath and wheezing episodes that were very likely caused by his exposure to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. He is very much in need of medical and psychological treatment provided by the VA. d. A VA Transcript of Hearing Before the Board of Veteran's Appeals, dated 10 February 2015, wherein a hearing was held on the applicant's appeal of whether his service from 16 February 1967 to 24 March 1969 was considered dishonorable for VA purposes. (1) The applicant testified after he was transferred to the 4th Infantry Division (ID) he asked to see somebody at the adjutant's office to get some idea of why he had been transferred and why he was losing jump pay. He did not do anything after the first 3 or 4 days because he was constantly asking the sergeant to let him talk to somebody about why he had been transferred. (2) After he got a chance to talk to Lieutenant (LT) D, he started going on work details. They put him in the weapons room to work. During this time, he was given an order to go forward and join the unit. He was told this maybe three times over the course of 4 to 6 weeks (emphasis added). The LT would say, "I'm ordering you to gather your…equipment and go forward and join your unit." He had replied, "Sir, I want to get this seen about why I was transferred and the rash…these things have not been taken care of." (3) His counsel stated for the record that a general court-martial was the highest level of court-martial offered by the military and he did not understand why they sent the applicant to a general court-martial for something so minor. 4. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 February 1967 and held military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). On 27 August 1967, he was assigned to Company D, 51st Infantry Regiment, Vietnam. 5. On 26 September 1967, he was placed in a casual status while enroute to the 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, Vietnam. On 28 September 1967, he was promoted to the rank/grade of private first class/E-3. 6. On 15 October 1967, he was assigned to Company E (LRP), 20th Infantry Regiment, 4th ID, Vietnam. 7. On 31 January 1968, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from his assigned unit on 21 January 1968. 8. On 11 April 1968, he was assigned to Company A, 1st Battalion, 35th Infantry Regiment, 4th ID, Vietnam. 9. On 27 June 1968, he was arraigned and tried by a general court-martial convened by Headquarters, 4th ID, Vietnam for one specification of willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior officer to go forward to join the company. Consistent with his plea, the court found him guilty and sentenced him to a forfeiture of two-thirds pay and allowances for 18 months, confinement for 18 months, reduction to private (PV1)/E-1, and a bad conduct discharge. 10. On 16 September 1968, he was assigned to the Correctional Holding Detachment, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, KS. 11. On 13 October 1968, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for forfeiture of $73 pay per month for 18 months, confinement for 18 months, reduction to PV1, and a bad conduct discharge. The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for appellate review. 12. On 17 December 1968, the U.S. Army Court of Military Review affirmed the approved findings of guilty and approved only so much of the sentence that provided for a forfeiture of $73 pay for 12 months, confinement for 12 months, reduction to PV1, and a bad conduct discharge. 13. His record contains a/an: a. DA Form R-1704 (Parole Statement), dated 27 December 1968, wherein it shows the applicant became eligible for initial parole on 26 December 1968. He stated he did not desire parole because he did not want any contact with the military after being in jail. b. DD Form 1476 (Prisoner's Admission Summary Data), dated 3 January 1969, wherein it stated. (1) Official information: General Court-Martial Order Number 31, dated 13 October 1968, showed that on or about 0645 hours, 5 May 1968, at Camp Enari, Vietnam, having received a lawful order from his superior officer to go forward and join the rest of the company, the applicant willfully disobeyed the order. (2) Prisoner's version: The applicant indicated he wanted to see the inspector general (IG) about a unit change and being placed back on jump status. At that time, an officer told him to join the rest of the company and he refused. c. DD Form 1478 (Prisoner's Summary Continuation Sheet), dated 3 January 1969, wherein the examining psychiatrist, stated, in part: (1) The applicant arrived from Vietnam on 16 September 1968, was in medium custody, and was not having any problems. He appeared in good health and had no physical complaints. He was cooperative during the interview and had no early developmental difficulties other than being arrested for a minor offense. (2) He had a fairly good military record prior to his confining offense and was a good combat Soldier in Vietnam, although he did receive two NJPs. The applicant was not able to get along with his patrol leader and felt that several men in his unit were prejudiced. He was transferred from the 101st Airborne Division to the 4th ID and underwent a serious decrease in morale. One month later when he was not able to return to jump status, he refused to go to the field. The applicant stated he was not trying to avoid combat he just felt it was unfair that he had been transferred out of his airborne unit. d. Provost Marshal General (PMG) (K) Form Number 95 (Factual Data for Restoration, Clemency and Parole Review), dated 18 February 1969, wherein it states: (1) The applicant, having received a lawful command from his superior officer to go forward to join the rest of the company did willfully disobey the order. He pled pled guilty to the charge and testified under oath that he performed combat missions and received airborne jump pay. He was transferred to 4th ID in April 1968, causing his jump status to stop and he lost the additional jump pay. He refused the order to go forward on a mission because he was getting nervous and stated he would rather not go back to the field but would do so in order to avoid going to jail. He stated that he had been under enemy fire but had never been wounded. (2) The applicant's version: He indicated he wanted to see the IG about a unit change and being placed back on jump status. He previously received two NJPs, one for missing formation and the other for being disrespectful. At the time, an officer told him to join the rest of the company and he refused. 14. General Court-Martial Order Number 183, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, KS, on 24 February 1969, shows that after completion of all required post-trial and appellate reviews, the convening authority ordered the applicant's bad conduct discharge duly executed. 15. His records contain a PMG (K) Form Number 82 (Clemency and Parole Action Record), dated 4 March 1969, wherein it shows the Army and Air Force Clemency and Parole Board recommended no clemency after reviewing his case. 16. His record contains a letter from the Chief, Clemency Branch, Department of the Army Office of the PMG, dated 17 March 1969, showing the applicant’s request for clemency was disapproved by the Secretary of the Army. 17. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged on 24 March 1969 with a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), as a result of court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations–Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 11-1b, and he was issued a Bad Conduct Discharge Certificate. He completed 1 year, 4 months, and 12 days of net active service and had 270 days (or 9 months) of lost time due to being in confinement. 18. The Board requested and a Department of the Army civilian clinical psychologist provided an advisory opinion on 24 May 2016 in the processing of this case. The clinical psychologist stated: a. The applicant was punitively separated by reason of misconduct on 24 March 1969 with a UOTHC characterization of service. His history of misconduct included failing to obey the lawful command of a superior officer. Based on the information available for review at this time, the applicant's record reasonably supports the diagnoses of the following medical conditions: PTSD, chronic; major depressive disorder, severe; and generalized anxiety disorder. b. The advisory official concurred with the various professional opinions submitted by behavioral healthcare providers that the applicant's behavioral health conditions very likely played a direct role in his misconduct during his time in the service. 19. In a response dated 6 June 2016, the applicant's counsel stated: a. Since the advisory opinion stated the applicant has a valid diagnosis of PTSD, and that his PTSD "very likely played a direct role in his misconduct above during his time in the service," he would recommend the Board fully adopt the advisory opinion recommendation in whole. b. On 28 May 2016, in between receiving the letter and advisory opinion, the applicant mailed a complaint to the U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Alabama regarding the Board's failure to upgrade his discharge based on the Hagel memorandum and other reasons, and also alleging violations of constitutional due process and violations of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The case number is 3:16cv393 and is awaiting service upon the Board. c. He wholeheartedly recommends the Board accept the advisory opinion in whole and upgrade the applicant's discharge. Doing so will allow the pending Federal complaint to be dismissed, saving both the applicant and the government substantial money in litigating this issue in the courts. REFERENCES: 1. AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a states that 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. Paragraph 3-7b states that 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. Paragraph 3-7c states an UOTHC discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial in certain circumstances. d. Paragraph 3–11 states that a Soldier will be given punitive discharge (i.e. bad conduct discharge or dishonorable discharge) pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. 2. PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and it provides standard criteria and common language for the classification of mental disorders. In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM-III nosologic classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. From an historical perspective, the significant change ushered in by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the etiological agent was outside the individual (i.e., a traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual weakness (i.e., a traumatic neurosis). The key to understanding the scientific basis and clinical expression of PTSD is the concept of "trauma." 3. PTSD is unique among psychiatric diagnoses because of the great importance placed upon the etiological agent, the traumatic stressor. In fact, one cannot make a PTSD diagnosis unless the patient has actually met the "stressor criterion," which means that he or she has been exposed to an event that is considered traumatic. 4. The DSM Fifth Revision (DSM-5) was released in May 2013. This revision includes changes to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and acute stress disorder. The PTSD diagnostic criteria were revised to take into account things that have been learned from scientific research and clinical experience. The revised diagnostic criteria for PTSD include a history of exposure to a traumatic event that meets specific stipulations and symptoms from each of four symptom clusters: intrusion, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and alterations in arousal and reactivity. The sixth criterion concerns duration of symptoms; the seventh assesses functioning; and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition. a. Criterion A, stressor: The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence. b. Criterion B, intrusion symptoms: The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced, in part, as intrusive memories, nightmares, and marked physiologic reactivity after exposure to trauma-related stimuli. c. Criterion C, avoidance: Persistent effortful avoidance of distressing trauma-related stimuli after the event of trauma-related thoughts or feelings or trauma-related external reminders. d. Criterion D, negative alterations in cognitions and mood: Negative alterations in cognitions and mood that began or worsened after the traumatic event, in part, of the inability to recall key features of the traumatic event, persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event, and markedly diminished interest in significant activities. e. Criterion E, alterations in arousal and reactivity: Trauma-related alterations in arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the traumatic event such as irritable or aggressive behavior, and problems in concentration. f. Criterion F, duration: Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than one month. g. Criterion G, functional significance: Significant symptom-related distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational). h. Criterion H, exclusion: Disturbance is not due to medication, substance use, or other illness. 5. As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis and treatment of PTSD the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge. It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge. Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time. 6. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service DRBs and Service 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 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. 7. BCM/NRs are not courts, nor are they investigative agencies. Therefore, the determinations will be based upon a thorough review of the available military records and the evidence provided by each applicant on a case-by-case basis. When determining if PTSD was the causative factor for an applicant's misconduct and whether an upgrade is warranted, the following factors must be carefully considered: * Is it reasonable to determine that PTSD or PTSD-related conditions existed at the time of discharge? * Does the applicant's record contain documentation of the occurrence of a traumatic event during the period of service? * Does the applicant's military record contain documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms? * Did the applicant provide documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms rendered by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider? * Was the applicant's condition determined to have existed prior to military service? * Was the applicant's condition determined to be incurred during or aggravated by military service? * Do mitigating factors exist in the applicant's case? * Did the applicant have a history of misconduct prior to the occurrence of the traumatic event? * Was the applicant's misconduct premeditated? * How serious was the misconduct? 8. Although the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged UOTHC may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time. Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge; those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the UOTHC characterization of service. Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of UOTHC. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Corrections Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causeal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 9. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the ABCMR is not empowered to set aside a conviction. Rather, it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy or instance of leniency to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. 10. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 11. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is American legislation that guarantees certain rights to people with disabilities. It states, in part, no otherwise qualified individual with a disability shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service. DISCUSSION: 1. Counsel's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. However, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant's counsel is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 2. In 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed DRBs and BCMRs to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was not administratively discharged. He received a punitive discharge by sentence of a general court-martial. Consequently, the Defense Secretary’s 2014 directive is not applicable to the applicant’s case. 3. The evidence of record confirms his trial by a general court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offense charged. He was an infantry Soldier in a combat zone who disobeyed a lawful order by refusing to join his infantry unit. While undiagnosed PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in his misconduct, it does not negate the fact that he refused to follow orders to join his infantry unit, which would be engaging with enemy forces. His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and his discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted. There is no evidence of error or injustice in the fact that the applicant was charged, tried, convicted, and punished for willfully disobeying a superior officer. 4. The 24 May 2016 medical advisory opinion considers the facts and circumstances of this case, including “the various professional opinions submitted by behavioral healthcare providers.” From this review, the advisory official determined the applicant’s “behavioral health conditions very likely played a direct role in his misconduct….” The medical advisor's finding that a causal and mitigating nexus likely existed between the applicant’s PTSD and his misconduct would support a conclusion that clemency is appropriate in this case. 5. By law, any redress by the ABCMR of the finality of a court-martial conviction is prohibited. (See Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(f)). The Board is only empowered to change a discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate to moderate the severity of the sentence imposed. 6. An honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’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. (See AR 635-200, paragraph 3-7, 6 September 2011). It is indisputable that the applicant engaged in misconduct while in the Army. In addition to his court-martial conviction, the applicant also was punished at least once under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for being AWOL from his assigned unit. Consequently, the applicant’s overall quality of service does not meet the criteria for an honorable characterization of service. 7. If one accepts the conclusion that his misconduct may have been mitigated by the presence of PTSD symptoms, one may conclude that clemency is warranted in the form of removing his bad conduct discharge and substituting a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003250 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003250 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2