BOARD DATE: 21 March DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017951 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ____x____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x____ ____x____ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 21 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017951 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decisions of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AC84-01542, dated 7 November 1984. _____________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. BOARD DATE: 21 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017951 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, in effect, reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge. 2. The applicant states: a.  Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was not recognized at the time of his general court-martial. He was suffering from PTSD and a traumatic brain injury (TBI) from a land mine blast in Vietnam. He should have gone before a medical evaluation board and retired. b.  His illness did not allow him to rationalize the totality of what was happening to him. He was not medically evaluated by an Army physician. He was not caught with marijuana nor was there any in his system. c.  He desires exoneration and receipt of full benefits as a Purple Heart recipient. d.  He was assigned to Troop E, 17th Cavalry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade, while in Vietnam and he was a .50 caliber machine gunner. On or about January 1968 while in Tuy Hoa, Vietnam, he was inside the lead armored personnel carrier when it hit a land mine. Bodies were everywhere and he does not remember everything. He was told years later that his medical records were destroyed in a fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, MO. He was medically evacuated from Tuy Hoa to the hospital in Cam Rahn Bay, Vietnam. He was in and out of consciousness and he was presented the Purple Heart by Robert Kennedy. e.  His injuries were so severe that he was flown to Camp Zama, Japan, where he stayed for 5 months while suffering from brain trauma, shrapnel injuries, and broken body parts. His left side was partially paralyzed, he had a ruptured spleen, and he was unconscious for a large portion of the time. He still does not remember what happened to him. He received notice of his daughter's birth while hospitalized. f.  He was unable to return to Vietnam, so he was sent to Korea to complete his overseas tour of duty. He reenlisted twice and his rank was staff sergeant during his last tour. He was in charge of instructing Soldiers in land mine warfare, hand grenades, M-16, and machine guns. He loved fighting for his country and decided to make the Army a career. He was on the list for promotion to sergeant first class. g.  On 17 February 1981 after 15 years of meritorious service, his life became a living hell. He was taken into custody at Fort Benning, GA, and eventually convicted of possessing and selling marijuana. No drugs were found on him. Not one person testified that he had sold marijuana. The truth was that Soldiers did smoke marijuana and drink beer, two habits he acquired when he got to Vietnam. These two drugs were readily accessible – he mentions this because both were used as coping mechanisms throughout the ranks. He is adamant that he never sold marijuana to anyone during or after his service. h.  One of his fellow Soldiers, who was also a friend, was caught selling marijuana. His friend was told by officials from the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) that they would let him go if he told them where he got the marijuana. His friend told them he got the marijuana from him. CID took the word of a man who was caught selling marijuana. i.  It took an eight-panel jury about 40 minutes to convict him. He never believed he would be convicted given the lack of evidence against him. He was accused of supposedly selling marijuana on 3 and 13 February 1981 at his home according to the informant. The informant was the prosecution's only witness. He did not possess any illegal substances when he was taken into custody and he swore his innocence. He offered to take a polygraph, to no avail. The informant testified under duress, he lied on the stand, and despite his expectation of leniency, he was put in jail anyway to bolster the prosecution's case. There was a glaring lack of substantial hard evidence or definitive secondary testimony from any eyewitnesses, including the assigned investigators. j.  His daughter, who was 13 years old at the time, witnessed his miscarriage of military justice. She suffered a heart attack as a result of his absence due to his service in Vietnam and experiencing his mistreatment. He was unable to ensure her proper medical treatment since he was incarcerated. The poor diagnosis and treatment by military medical professionals caused her death. The outcome was ensured by the existing institutionalized cultural disparity of imaginable magnitude. k.  These professional and personal events compounded his battle-related injuries, amplified his PTSD, and resulted in compounding his mental and physical health issues today. All of his complications were diagnosed and treatable, but remain woefully neglected prior to and after the legal travesty to which he was subjected. His combat-related diagnoses have limited his daily life and will undoubtedly and incrementally limit his ability to live a reasonably independent life in the future. His discharge is an obvious correctable error and his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits should be amended as soon as possible. 3. The applicant provides: * cover letter, dated 23 October 2015 * self-authored letter, undated * three character-reference letters * email * Military Order of the Purple Heart Certificate * Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System Certificate * two Wikipedia Internet extracts * U.S. Army Military Police and Chemical Schools, Training Center and Fort McClellan, General Court-Martial Order Number 5, dated 28 October 1981 * Headquarters, U.S. Army Infantry Center and Fort Benning, General Court-Martial Order Number 40, dated 16 November 1982 * news article, undated, subject: Sergeant Convicted in Marijuana Case * VA Rating Decision, dated 26 August 2014 * VA letter, dated 3 September 2014 * Secretary of Defense letter, dated 3 September 2014, subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD * three DD Forms 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty and Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 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 AC84-01542 on 7 November 1984. 2. The applicant provided new arguments and evidence not previously considered that warrant consideration at this time. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 April 1967 for a 3-year period. 4. He served in Vietnam during the period 11 November 1967 to 26 February 1968. While in Vietnam, he was injured and he received the Purple Heart for his injuries. 5.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, as follows: * on 27 November 1967, for wrongfully appropriating a government truck * on 6 September 1969, for disobeying a lawful order of a commissioned officer and being disrespectful to two noncommissioned officers * on 23 March 1970, for violating a general regulation 6.  On 22 April 1970, he was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement). 7. On 6 August 1970, he was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve for immediate enlistment in the Regular Army. 8. On 7 August 1970, he enlisted in the Regular Army. 9. He was promoted to the rank/grade of staff sergeant/E-6 effective 26 November 1977. 10. U.S. Army Military Police and Chemical Schools, Training Center and Fort McClellan, General Court-Martial Order Number 5, dated 28 October 1981, shows: a.  He pled not guilty and he was found guilty of: * wrongfully possessing 55 grams, more or less, of marijuana on or about 5 February 1981 * wrongfully transferring marijuana to Sergeant L____ M____ on or about 5 February 1981 * wrongfully possessing 55 grams, more or less, of marijuana on or about 13 February 1981 * wrongfully selling marijuana to Sergeant L____ M____ on or about 13 February 1981 b.  He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, 3 months confinement at hard labor, and reduction in rank/grade to private/E-1. 11. Headquarters, U.S. Army Infantry Center and Fort Benning, General Court-Martial Order Number 40, dated 16 November 1982, announced the affirmation of his sentence. 12. On 9 December 1982, he was discharged accordingly. 13. On 7 November 1984, the ABCMR denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 14. He provided a copy of his Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System Mental Health and Behavioral Medicine Service Substance Abuse Treatment Program Certificate, dated 9 April 2012, which shows he completed 4 weeks of intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment and 6 weeks of aftercare. 15. He provided a copy of his Military Order of the Purple Heart Certificate, dated 9 January 2014, and Wikipedia encyclopedia entries about the Battle of Dak To and the173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team. 16. He provided a copy of his VA Rating Decision, dated 26 August 2014, which shows the VA granted him a 70-percent disability rating for PTSD, a 10-percent disability rating for TBI with traumatic headaches, and a 10-percent disability rating for tinnitus. He also provided a letter from the VA, dated 3 September 2015, that shows the same disability ratings. 17. He provided three character-reference letters and an email as follows: a.  A letter from his wife, undated, states in part, the trauma of war, loss of their daughter, being arrested, and being stripped of his rank has been an emotionally continuous battle. He suffers from PTSD and he suffered severe injuries while in Vietnam. He still does not remember everything that happened to him. In 1981, she came home to find the sheriff searching their home and the sheriff found less than an ounce of marijuana in their bedroom in sewing box in the closet. She was taken to the sheriff's office and jailed. Her husband was taken into custody by officials from CID at Fort Benning, GA. He admitted the marijuana was his, all charges against her were dropped, and he was found guilty of a misdemeanor and fined $250.00. However, this was not mentioned during his court-martial. He was convicted of possessing and selling marijuana after 40 minutes by an eight-member panel based on the testimony of one man, who was an uncreditable witness due to being caught and arrested for smoking marijuana. This witness was a friend of her husband and visited frequently. The witness was told he would not be arrested if he cooperated and told CID where the marijuana came from. b.  A letter from Dr. T____ L____, dated 2 September 2014, states he was aware of the applicant's injury in Vietnam, his daughter's birth, his assignment to Korea, and his award of the Purple Heart. He was also aware of the fire which destroyed the applicant's records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973. c.  Email from T ____ H____, dated 10 September 2014, requests details from the applicant in order to write a buddy support letter and the applicant's response, dated 23 September 2014, provides details of events leading to his injuries in Vietnam. d.  A letter from T____ H____, dated 8 December 2014, states he served with the applicant in Vietnam. He states the applicant was injured, medically evacuated to Japan, and never returned to Vietnam. 18. On 8 December 2016, an Army Review Boards Agency Clinical Psychologist provided an advisory opinion in which she recommends denial of the applicant's request. a.  Based on a thorough review of available medical records, there is no evidence that the diagnoses of PTSD, TBI, or any other behavioral health conditions existed during the applicant's military service or that his misconduct was mitigated by a behavioral health condition. b.  The presence of potentially untreated PTSD or TBI during his time in service does not mitigate his actions, as the nature of these conditions are not reasonably related to the misconduct of possessing, transferring, or selling marijuana. c.  Although medical records during his time in service are not available due to a 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, MO, a review of the available documentation found no evidence of a medical disability or condition which would support a change to the character or reason for his discharge. d.  This observation does not negate his post-service diagnosis of PTSD from the VA; however, the VA conducts evaluations based on different standards and regulations. In summary, there is no evidence the applicant had a condition that warranted medical processing or retirement at his time of his discharge from the Army. 19. On 5 December 2016, a copy the advisory opinion was sent to the applicant for review and an opportunity to provide a response. 20. On 22 December 2016, he provided a response in which he restated his earlier statements. He further states: a.  He was not charged with any severe criminal offenses and his charges were based on hearsay. The informant was the prosecution's only witness to the charge of two sales. He was never found with any illegal substances on his person or in his home. This was an act of racism against a highly decorated African American Soldier. There were sabotages because none of the law enforcement officers were present during either of the supposed sales in his home. b.  He earned two Bronze Star Medals and a Purple Heart while serving his country in Vietnam. c.  On 7 January 1986, he incurred injuries to his back, head, left arm, elbow, and spleen. He was in the hospital for 4 months and he suffers from numerous ailments as a result of fighting in the Vietnam War. His soft tissue sarcoma and hemicolectomy are due to the 11-12 centimeter tumor in his abdomen, which is from dioxin exposure (Agent Orange). d.  There is no definitive way for the Army Review Boards Agency to determine if there is a nexus between his PTSD information and diagnosis contained in his records and his misconduct since the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application was not in use at the time of his service. The general court-martial and the bad conduct discharge occurred after his return from Vietnam and was due to many years of no treatment for PTSD or TBI. e.  There is no substantial evidence that he did not have a history or diagnosis of mental wounds from combat. He was in Vietnam, which is presumptive that he has PTSD or combat stress. Combat stress is an expected and predictable reaction to combat experiences. If his medical records were destroyed in the 1973 fire, then there is no definitive legal documentation to say he was not treated for combat stressors or that he did not have a condition that warranted medical processing or retirement at the time of his discharge. f.  His physical profile documents his permanent medical disability from his injury in Vietnam. He could be medically boarded based upon his physical abilities under the training standards of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), dated 1978, which is different from the 4 August 2011 version quoted. g.  He provided an unidentified photograph, medical record extracts which do not show a diagnosis of PTSD or other behavioral health issues, and three VA disability benefits questionnaires. He also provided a copy of U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals opinion, dated 17 December 2009, in which the court decided to set aside a bad conduct discharge sentence of a U.S. Marine Corps private. A general court-martial found him guilty of two specifications of unauthorized absence, one specification of missing the movement of his unit through design, one specification of failing to obey a lawful general order, four specifications of using marijuana, and one specification of possessing marijuana. The court considered his entire record and opined his severe PTSD and probable TBI were mitigating factors relating to his misconduct. 21. His records are void of and he failed to provide evidence showing he was found unfit and required processing through the Army Disability Evaluation System. 22. The National Personnel Records Center experienced a disastrous fire on 12 July 1973 and approximately 16-18 million Official Military Personnel Files were destroyed. The Army records affected by the fire were those of personnel discharged from 1 November 1912 to 1 January 1960. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, provides that with respect to records of courts-martial and related administrative records pertaining to court-martial cases tried or reviewed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, action to correct any military record of the Secretary's Department may extend only to correction of a record to reflect actions taken by reviewing authorities under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or action on the sentence of a court-martial for purposes of clemency. Such corrections shall be made by the Secretary acting through boards of civilians of the executive part of that Military Department. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 3. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The current version is essentially unchanged. 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. A Soldier will be given a bad conduct 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. 4. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), chapter 7, addresses trauma and stress or related disorders. The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association and provides standard criteria and common language for the classification of mental disorders. In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM nosologic classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. From a 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." 5. 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. Clinical experience with the PTSD diagnosis has shown, however, that there are individual differences regarding the capacity to cope with catastrophic stress. Therefore, while most people exposed to traumatic events do not develop PTSD, others go on to develop the full-blown syndrome. Such observations have prompted the recognition that trauma, like pain, is not an external phenomenon that can be completely objectified. Like pain, the traumatic experience is filtered through cognitive and emotional processes before it can be appraised as an extreme threat. Because of individual differences in this appraisal process, different people appear to have different trauma thresholds, some more protected from and some more vulnerable to developing clinical symptoms after exposure to extremely stressful situations. 6. The fifth edition of the DSM 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 criterion 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. c. Criterion C – Avoidance: Persistent effortful avoidance of distressing trauma-related stimuli after the event. d. Criterion D – Negative Alterations in Cognitions and Mood: Negative alterations in cognitions and mood that began or worsened after the traumatic event, such as: * inability to recall key features of the traumatic event (usually dissociative amnesia; not due to head injury, alcohol, or drugs) * persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs and expectations about oneself or the world (e.g., "I am bad," "The world is completely dangerous") * persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event or for resulting consequences * persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame) * markedly diminished interest in (pre-traumatic) significant activities, feeling alienated from others (e.g., detachment or estrangement) * constricted affect, persistent inability to experience positive emotions e. Criterion E – Alterations in Arousal and Reactivity: Trauma-related alterations in arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the traumatic event. f. Criterion F – Duration: Persistence of symptoms (in criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than 1 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. 7. 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 Department of Defense 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 also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldiers' 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 a 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. 8. On 3 September 2014 in view of the foregoing information, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (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 under other than honorable conditions (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 applicants' service. 9. 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? 10. Although the Department of Defense 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 records 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. BCM/NRs 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. BCM/NRs will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 11. Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-3 (Policies), in effect at the time, stated that when a member was being processed for separation for reasons other than physical disability, his continued performance of duty until he was scheduled for separation for other purposes created a presumption that the member was fit for duty. 12. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Physical Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. a.  The mere presence of impairment does not, in and of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. b.  The medical treatment facility commander with primary care responsibility evaluates those referred to him or her and, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refers the member to a medical evaluation board. Those members who do not meet medical retention standards are referred to a physical evaluation board for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically disqualifying condition. 13. Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect the individual's civilian employability. The VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. The U.S. Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career, while the VA may rate any service-connected impairment, including those that are detected after discharge, in order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. 14. The National Personnel Records Center experienced a disastrous fire on 12 July 1973 and approximately 16-18 million Official Military Personnel Files were destroyed. The Army records affected by the fire were those of personnel discharged from 1 November 1912 to 1 January 1960. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends that his medical records were destroyed in a fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, MO. However, the Army records affected by the fire were those of personnel discharged from 1 November 1912 to 1 January 1960. The applicant did not enter military service until 19 April 1967. 2. The applicant contends he was falsely accused and convicted of possessing, transferring, and selling marijuana by a general court-martial, but he did not possess any illegal substances at the time he was taken into custody. However, he provided a statement from his wife in which she stated the sheriff found less than an ounce of marijuana in their home, she was jailed, and the next day he admitted the marijuana was his and all charges against her were dropped. 3. His trial by a general court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged. His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. His claim of innocence relates to evidentiary and legal matters that should have been addressed and conclusively adjudicated in the court-martial appellate process. 4. He was given a bad conduct discharge pursuant to an approved sentence of a general court-martial. The appellate review was completed and the affirmed sentence was ordered duly executed. All requirements of law and regulation were met with respect to the conduct of the court-martial and the appellate review process and the rights of the applicant were fully protected. 5. 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. 6. Although he has a current diagnosis of PTSD, his available records are void of and he failed to provide evidence showing he had a mental or behavioral health condition warranting processing through the Army Disability Evaluation System. 7. The U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals opinion, dated 17 December 2009, shows, in part, the accused possessed and used marijuana and the medical community has determined PTSD can be associated with the use of illicit drugs for self-medication and avoidant behaviors. Self-medication with marijuana is a coping mechanism, unlike the premeditated act of selling marijuana. 8. The Army Review Boards Agency Clinical Psychologist opined the presence of potentially untreated PTSD or TBI during his time of service does not mitigate his actions as the nature of these conditions are not reasonably related to the misconduct of possessing, transferring, or selling marijuana. 9. The ABCMR does not grant requests for discharge upgrades solely for the purpose of making an applicant eligible for veterans' or other benefits. Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge. Additionally, granting veterans' benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR. Any questions regarding eligibility for veterans' benefits should be addressed to the VA or appropriate State or Federal agency. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017951 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017951 15 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2