BOARD DATE: 2 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002073 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x_____ ___x_____ ___x__ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 2 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002073 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. __________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: 2 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002073 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 an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his UOTHC discharge is inequitable due to the stressors he endured during his military service. He chooses not to place blame for his mental condition or court-martial on the horrors of war he experienced in Vietnam or on anyone in particular. a. He admits that he self-medicated with amphetamines, alcohol, cocaine, and marijuana in order to deal with his post-Vietnam stress syndrome, which is now known as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He pled guilty to all charges against him because of his amphetamine psychosis and stressors of PTSD because he was not in his right mind during the court-martial proceedings. b. He states that Army officials should have noticed his problems and referred him to counseling/rehabilitation before and during his court-martial. Instead, he did not receive counseling until after he was sentenced and confined at the United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB). The Chief Psychologist, USDB, discovered the requirement for "severe rehabilitation" due to his amphetamine psychosis and drug history. The psychologist noted that the Army should have noticed a problem and taken care of the applicant's needs since the applicant was too mentally unstable to ask for help on his own. c. The applicant adds that it has taken him many years to heal from his drug and alcohol dependence and to learn how to handle his PTSD. He has stopped being the drug-riddled, guilt-driven man that he was. He fought hard and served his country with pride and honor. He understands the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) cannot change his court-martial and requests upgrade of his discharge. 3. The applicant provides copies of his officer evaluation reports; letters of appreciation and commendation; DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); evidence of his drug dependence, PTSD, and rehabilitation; and letters of recommendation. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 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 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant had prior honorable, active duty enlisted service from 23 June 1958 through 9 May 1961 and from 13 April 1962 through 19 March 1964. a. He served overseas in Korea from December 1959 to January 1961 and in Germany from January 1963 to August 1963. b. He was promoted to specialist five/pay grade E-5 on 23 September 1963. c. He was honorably discharged to accept appointment as a commissioned officer. 3. The applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army, in the rank of second lieutenant (Army Intelligence Service), on 20 March 1964. 4. His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows in – * item 5 (Oversea Service) – * Okinawa from 15 September 1967 through 24 July 1968 * Vietnam from 25 July 1968 through 23 January 1969 * Okinawa from 24 January 1969 through 10 July 1969 * Vietnam from 11 July 1969 through 8 January 1970 * Okinawa from 9 January 1970 through 20 February 1970 * Korea from 10 February 1974 through 13 January 1977 * item 18 (Appointments and Reductions): major (O-4), 12 July 1973 * item 35 (Record of Assignments) – * 441st Military Intelligence Detachment, 1st Special Forces (SF) Group (SFG) (Airborne), 1st SF, from 1 July 1968 through 22 January 1969 * Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st SFG (Airborne), 1st SF, from 10 July 1969 through 7 January 1970 5. Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, NC, General Court-Martial (GCM) Order Number 31, dated 16 July 1979, shows the applicant was tried by a GCM. He pled not guilty to and was found guilty of violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, (UCMJ), Article 134 (three specifications), for, on 26 January 1979, at Fort Bragg, NC, wrongfully selling 2 pounds (more or less) of marijuana, wrongfully transferring 2 pounds (more or less) of marijuana, and wrongfully having in his possession 2 pounds (more or less) of marijuana. a. On 8 June 1979, he was sentenced to forfeit all pay and allowances, to be confined at hard labor for 3 years, and to be dismissed from the service. b. On 16 July 1979, the GCM Convening Authority approved the sentence and ordered it duly executed, except for that part of the sentence extending to dismissal. He also ordered the record of trial be forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for review by the Court of Military Review. 6. United States Army Court of Military Review, Memorandum Opinion, dated 8 January 1981, pertaining to the applicant's court-martial, shows the Court found the approved findings of guilty and the sentence correct in law and fact. Having determined on the basis of the entire record that they should be approved, such findings of guilty and the sentence were affirmed. 7. The applicant was notified of the decision of the Court of Military Review on 15 January 1981. 8. Headquarters, U.S. Army Military Personnel Center, Alexandria, VA, message, date-time group 201700Z May 1981, subject: Release from Active Duty (REFRAD), directed orders be issued effecting the applicant's REFRAD. 9. Headquarters, USDB, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, KS, Order Number 100-4, dated 22 May 1981, shows the applicant was REFRAD, effective 1 June 1981, and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Standby). The order also shows, "Additional Instructions: 'Pursuant to the provision of the UCMJ, Article 2(1), and paragraph 11d, Manual for Courts-Martial, 1969 (Revised Edition), officer could be retained in the service pending final action upon the court-martial charges under which he stands convicted. The fact that he is being [REFRAD] shall not effect or be construed to effect, constructively or impliedly, any condonation or pardon of the offense or offenses under which he stands convicted, or remission, in whole or in part of the sentence adjudged against him therefor. The period of service from which he is being REFRAD will be characterized according to the final action upon said sentence.' You are not required to report physically to the Control Group but you must keep them informed of your current address at all times." 10. A DD Form 214 shows the applicant was REFRAD on 1 June 1981 and he was dismissed as a result of court-martial effective 18 June 1981. He had completed 17 years, 2 months, and 27 days of net active service this period; 4 years, 9 months, and 24 days of total prior active service; and 11 months and 3 days of total prior inactive service. It also shows in: * item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) the – * National Defense Service Medal * Army Good Conduct Medal * Army Commendation Medal * Vietnam Service Medal * Combat Infantryman Badge * Parachutist Badge * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) * Bronze Star Medal * 2 Overseas Service Bars * Air Medal * Purple Heart * Joint Service Commendation Medal * Armed Forces Reserve Medal * Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal * Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation * item 14 (Military Education) – * Basic Analyst, 1962 * Communications Security Specialist, 1962 * Infantry Officer Candidate, 1964 * Thai Language, 1966 * Airborne, 1967 * Special Forces (Nonresident), 1969 * Automated Data Processing Systems Analyst (Nonresident), 1970 * Military Intelligence Officer Advanced Course, 1971 * Command and Staff Officer, Electronic Warfare, 1973 * Civil Affairs (Nonresident), 1971 * Personnel Management, 1971 11. In support of his application the applicant provides the following documents. a. Evidence of PTSD that includes a letter submitted by the applicant to the Honorable Judge Ross T. R____, U.S. District Court Western Division of Missouri, Kansas City, MO, dated 22 September 1985, and three letters in support of his petition for possible pardon of forgiveness written by F.J. T___, PhD, dated 27 August 1985; E.R. M____, Jr., Medical Doctor, dated 23 August 1985, and Robert G____, Outreach Specialist, dated 9 February 1982. In pertinent part, they refer to the applicant having been issued powerful drugs by the Army, ordeals of his top secret intelligence gathering missions while in Southeast Asia and the continental United States, his self-medication and history of treatment for amphetamine psychosis, and his difficulty in dealing with his experiences. (1) A letter written by Christopher A. R____, Licensed Clinical Social Worker, dated 19 April 2014, who offers information about how he met the applicant in 1978. They were introduced to an individual who they later learned was a government agent after the applicant was charged with a drug offense. He adds, "However, as I understand it, the governor of North Carolina eventually pardoned [the applicant] after realizing that [the applicant] had just been 'duped' into some kind of drug 'sting' operation." (2) A letter written by Doctor Craig Young, Doctor of Dental Services, dated 30 April 2014, who has known the applicant as a patient and friend for several years. He speaks highly of his message of peace. (3) VA medical records pertaining to the applicant that span the period 20 April 2011 to 27 April 2012 and, in pertinent part, show a diagnosis of PTSD, polysubstance dependency in remission b. Military evaluation reports spanning the entire period of his military service in which he highlights comments emphasizing his outstanding/superior service and contributions in various duty positions. They also include, in pertinent part: (1) two Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) for the period 1 July 1968 to 26 November 1968 and the period 13 July 1969 to 8 January 1970 (the periods of his service in Vietnam) that show his outstanding performance. (2) An OER for the period 10 July 1973 to 2 January 1974 that shows his substandard performance due to personal and financial issues. c. Letters in support of rehabilitation, recommendation, and in support of his petition for pardon that, in pertinent part, include the following: (1) Two letters in support of a pardon pertaining to the applicant, dated 22 October 1985 and 9 November 1985. Also a State of North Carolina, Parole Commission, Raleigh, NC, Certificate of Unconditional Discharge (and Restoration of Forfeited Rights of Citizenship for Felons), issued on 5 November 1990, that shows the applicant was committed to the North Carolina Department of Corrections on 20 July 1979, paroled or conditionally released on 14 December 1987, had made a satisfactory adjustment, and was granted an unconditional discharge from sentences on 5 February 1990. (2) Two letters, dated 14 November 2005 and 20 March 2006, that show the applicant's application for criminal rehabilitation was approved under Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. (3) Character reference letters (25) spanning the period 11 October 1997 to 17 September 2013 in which the authors offer testimony as to the applicant's character. (4) Character reference letters (20) spanning the period 8 April 2014 to 14 June 2014 in which the authors offer their support of a pardon pertaining to the applicant. d. Letters/Certificates of appreciation and commendation, certificates of completion, and orders and citations that document his service and achievements, military training, and awards and decorations. e. Service records that include his appointment documents, DA Form 2-1, certificates of military service, and DD Forms 214 that document the periods of his military service. 12. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the medical staff of the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), dated 18 November 2016. a. The ARBA clinical psychologist noted that he was asked to determine if the available records reasonably support PTSD, or other boardable behavioral health (BH) conditions, existed at the time of the applicant's military service; if the condition(s) failed medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) warranting separation through medical channels; is/are the condition(s) a mitigating factor in the misconduct that resulted in his discharge from military service; was the required medical examination, which includes a BH component, conducted prior to administrative separation; and any additional information deemed appropriate. b. The opinion is based on the information provided by the ABCMR and the applicant (in his application), records available in the Department of Defense (DoD) electronic medical record (AHLTA), and VA records available through the Joint Legacy Viewer. c. The clinical psychologist noted the applicant served two tours of duty in Vietnam. He was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge and the Purple Heart. There is written testimony that shows the tours of duty took a toll on the applicant; he was relying on amphetamines during his 1968 tour in Vietnam when he was with a Special Forces unit. He was diagnosed with Post Vietnam Stress Syndrome in 1982 and he has since been diagnosed as having PTSD by the VA. He found the applicant's record of service, abundant laudatory testimony on his behalf by others, and his PTSD fully meets criteria for mitigation of his personal drug use; however the applicant was not discharged for his drug use. He was found guilty by a court-martial of charges and specifications that arose from him having 2 pounds of marijuana in his possession (for sale) on a military installation d. He found the available records reasonably support the applicant having had a boardable medical condition at the time of his dismissed in June 1981. The applicant did meet standards in AR 40-501 and AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), as his subsequent records show he responds well to treatment, if it is provided. His PTSD does mitigate personal drug use, but not his drug dealing. e. The available evidence did not include a medical examination that met the Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1177, requirement. The applicant likely developed PTSD at some point during and after his Vietnam tours, as evidenced by his self-medicating, recklessness, poor boundaries, and poor social adjustment. His symptoms at first appear to have created limited functional impairment at work, but over time there does appear to have been a steady degradation in his competence and his judgment that was evident by the time his marijuana and other drug use became widely known. He added, PTSD does not mitigate his drug dealing, especially given the quantity of marijuana involved. f. The ARBA clinical psychologist concluded that the applicant met medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501, chapter 3, and following the provisions of AR 635-40 that were applicable to the applicant's era of service. In addition, a review of available documentation did not find evidence of a medical disability or conditions which would support a change to the character or reason for the discharge in this case. A nexus between the applicant's BH diagnoses and a portion of his misconduct was discovered. 13. On 28 November 2016, the applicant was provided a copy of the ARBA advisory opinion to allow him the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal. 14. On 21 December 2016, the applicant provided a response, along with six supporting documents (previously described in this Record of Proceedings). He stated the advisory opinion does no convey all of the information concerning his relationship with Christopher A. R____ and the North Carolina sheriff's department. He stated that he was not allowed to say one word in his defense at the court-martial and provided a statement of what he would have said at the court-martial. He also provided additional information about an encounter with an individual who identified himself as a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent that occurred while he was confined at the USDB. He also stated that the time he spent in confinement enabled him to clear the effect of all drugs from his life. He asserted, "I never sold marijuana on the streets!" He added that he was cleared of any wrongdoing by the Government of North Carolina and all of his rights were restored. Additionally, he was cleared by the FBI and he is free to travel anywhere in the world. REFERENCES: 1. 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. PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster. 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." 2. 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. 3. 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, along with 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. 4. As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and 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 (UOTHC) may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge. It also acknowledges 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. 5. On 3 September 2014, in a memorandum (with attachment), 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 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. 6. 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? 7. Although 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 causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 8. On 24 February 2016, in a memorandum, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense referenced the Secretary of Defense memorandum, issued on 3 September 2014, pertaining considering discharge upgrade requests by veterans claiming PTSD or related conditions, such as Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). He instructed BCM/NRs to waive, if it is applicable and bars consideration of cases, the imposition of the statute of limitation. He stated that fairness and equity demand, in cases of such magnitude, that a veteran's petition receive full and fair review, even if brought outside of the time limit. Similarly, cases considered previously either by the DRBs or by the BCM/NRs, but without benefit of the application of the Supplemental Guidance, shall be, upon petition, granted de novo review utilizing the Supplemental Guidance. 9. DoD Directive–Type Memorandum (DTM) 11-015 provides that the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) is the joint DoD-VA process by which DoD determines whether wounded, ill, or injured Service members are fit for continued military service and by which DoD and VA determine appropriate benefits for Service members who are separated or retired for a service-connected disability. The IDES features a single set of disability medical examinations appropriate for fitness determination by the Military Departments and a single set of disability ratings provided by VA for appropriate use by both departments. Although IDES includes medical examinations, IDES processes are administrative in nature and are independent of clinical care and treatment. 10. Army Regulation 635-100 (Personnel Separations – Officer Personnel), in effect at the time, provides the authority for the separation of officer personnel from the Active Army. Chapter 1 (General Provisions) shows, normally, an officer's service is characterized as honorable when the officer is REFRAD and returned to the USAR. An officer's service normally will be characterized as under honorable conditions or UOTHC when such a determination is made by a Department of the Army Active Duty Board for officers being REFRAD because of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction. This includes an officer who is found guilty, or action is taken which is tantamount to a finding of guilty, by any Federal or State court. 11. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, provides that the Board 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. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded based on his record honorable military service, the stressors he endured during his military service, failure of the Army to provide rehabilitation/therapy related to his drug abuse, his subsequent diagnosis of PTSD, the action by the Government of North Carolina, and his post-service conduct. 2. The evidence of record shows the applicant served in Vietnam from 25 July 1968 to 23 January 1969 and from 11 July 1969 to 8 January 1970. 3. The applicant was tried and convicted at a GCM of the charge (with three specifications) of the wrongful sale, transfer, and possession of 2 pounds of marijuana. a. His sentence included dismissal from the service and his service was characterized as UOTHC. It is reasonable to conclude that the applicant's entire record of military service was considered during the court-martial process. b. The applicant's court-martial and sentence was affirmed by the United States Court of Military Review. c. His contentions that he was not allowed to speak at his court-martial and failure on the part of the U.S. Army to provide him rehabilitation/therapy for his drug abuse are noted. However, these issues were matters that the applicant and his counsel could/should have presented in the appeal process. 4. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards and 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. An upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions offers the former Soldier eligibility for veterans' benefits. a. The applicant was not administratively discharged; he was dismissed from the Army as a result of court-martial. b. In that the applicant does not seek to upgrade an UOTHC administrative discharge, the Secretary of Defense's 3 September 2014, memorandum is not controlling in this case. 5. The applicant's trial by general court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses for which he was charged. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant's rights were protected throughout the court-martial process, including the appellate review. 6. The ARBA staff psychologist found the applicant met medical retention standards at the time of his dismissal in June 1981. He also found that his PTSD does mitigate personal drug use, but not his drug dealing. Additionally, a review of available documentation did not find evidence of a medical disability or conditions which would support a change to the character or reason for the discharge in this case. 7. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. Any redress by this Board of the finality of a court-martial conviction is prohibited by law. The Board is only empowered to change a discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate to moderate the severity of the sentence imposed. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002073 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002073 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2