BOARD DATE: 17 April 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007420 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ____x____ ___x_____ _____x___ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 17 April 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007420 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 3 April 2004 by: a. deleting the entry "0000 10 26" from item 12f (Foreign Service) and adding the entry "0001 00 00"; and b. adding the entry "SERVICE IN KUWAIT/IRAQ FROM 20030410 - 20040409" in item 18 (Remarks). 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to: a. correcting his DD Form 214 for the period ending 30 September 2015 by: (1) showing he served in Iraq; (2) upgrading his characterization of service to honorable; and (3) changing his narrative reason for separation, separation authority, and separation code; and 3. A personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 4. There are no provisions for reinstating a security clearance that was revoked because an individual was discharged from the military. _____________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: 17 April 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007420 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 corrections of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 30 September 2015 to show the following entries: a items 12f (Foreign Service): his foreign service b. item 18 (Remarks): service in Iraq, c. item 24 (Character of Service): "HONORABLE," d. item 25 (Separation Authority): medical retirement or in the alternative completion of required active service, e. item 26 (Separation Code): "RBB" [Retirement, Other], or in the alternative "MBK" [Completion of Required Active Service], or a code that reflects medical retirement, and f. item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), medical retirement or completion of required active service. 2. The applicant requests a personal appearance hearing. 3. The applicant states: a. His service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) should be a mitigating factor in his discharge. His marriage was good prior to deploying to Kuwait and Iraq in 2003. His marital problems began when he turned from deployment. He committed adultery and fathered two children from that affair. He should have undergone a medical evaluation board based on his diagnosis of major depression and anxiety disorder but he convinced doctors that he was okay and did not need a medical board. He assumed he could handle his mental health condition on his own or it would just go away; but it never goes away. His problems surfaced in 2013 with his first arrest for arguing with his wife. The court administratively dismissed the charges. His command ordered him to attend weekly sessions with a psychologist at Martin Army Hospital, Fort Benning, GA. The administrative separation board put him on a 1-year probationary period. b. His second arrest occurred in 2014 for arguing with his wife. He spent 40 days in jail, was ordered to perform community service, and attend family violence group counseling. When he was released from jail, his commander ordered him to have a mental evaluation at Eisenhower Army Hospital, Fort Gordon, GA. Mental health professionals diagnosed him with PTSD, major depression, and anxiety disorder. c. While in Iraq, he traveled around the country and he saw numerous dead bodies on the side of the roads. In one incident, he helped load bodies into a C-130 plane and he rode with those body bags draped in the U.S. Flag. He also discussed an incident where a female Soldier panicked and screamed hysterically when she learned she had to ride in the C-130 with the dead bodies. He can still hear her scream. d. In another incident, he and other Soldiers unloaded money from a helicopter to transfer to an Iraqi official. Some teenage boys approached him about his gun [grenade launcher]. Due to the language barrier, he did not understand their questions. The teenagers made him nervous because they were so close to him and they wanted to touch his gun. He pulled his gun on the teenagers which prompted the Soldiers with the Iraqi official to pull their guns on him. It was a tense situation for a few moments, but no one got hurt. e. He continues to suffer the effects of his deployment. He feels alone and isolated due to PTSD. He dreams and experience nightmares, gets angry, argues with his wife and coworkers, cries very easily, has trouble concentrating and remembering things, and he has panic attacks that includes chest pain, and heavy sweating. He drinks a lot on the weekend and regularly take chances that put his life at risk. f. Since he did not receive an honorable discharge with a medical retirement, his family does not have health insurance. Additionally, he is embarrassed and feels his reputation has been ruined because of his general discharge. The conduct that led to his discharge was due to PTSD. An honorable discharge with a medical retirement would mean his family could get back on TRICARE and he would proud. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel reiterates the applicant's request for an upgrade of his general discharge ending on 30 September 2015. He also requests correction of this DD Form 214 to reflect the applicant’s service in Iraq. 2. Counsel states, in effect: a. The applicant received an honorable discharge for the period 16 May 2005 through 30 September 2015 with a narrative reason for separation of "completion of required active service." However, that DD Form 214 was VOIDED and he received a subsequent DD Form 214, dated 19 November 2015, for the same period of active service showing he was discharged under honorable conditions (general) with the narrative reason of "Misconduct, (Serious Offense)." Both the separation authority and separation codes were also changed. b. Prior to discharge, the applicant dealt with mental health issues, specifically PTSD and major depressive disorder. In light of the former Secretary of Defense's guidance on veterans claiming PTSD, the applicant's PTSD should be considered as a mitigating factor for the conduct that resulted in his general discharge. Therefore, the applicant's discharge should be upgraded and he should receive a medical retirement. Additionally, the narrative reason for separation should be changed along with the separation authority, and separation code to reflect medical retirement or in the alternative, completion of required active service. c. The applicant's general discharge, narrative reason for separation, separation code, and separation authority are inequitable because his misconduct was due to his service-connected mental disabilities. His discharge has deprived him of the benefits of a medical retirement, including TRICARE for him and his family. d. The applicant's request should be approved because he has been diagnosed with multiple mental disabilities, including PTSD, which contributed to his misconduct. e. The applicant served his country for over 20 years. He served on active duty for training from 30 June 1992 to 15 January 1993 and he remained in the Army Reserve from 16 January 1993 until 9 February 2003. He was ordered to active duty for deployment from 10 February 2003 through 3 April 2004. He served in Kuwait and Iraq until 3 April 2004. Following his release from active duty, he received an honorable discharge. He served honorably in the Army Reserve from 4 April 2004 to 14 May 2005. He served on active duty again from 15 [16] May 2005 to 30 September 2015. f. After serving in Iraq, the applicant began showing signs of bad decision-making, including arguing with his wife and committing adultery. His marital problems began after serving in Iraq and the applicant and his wife separated. It was at this time, in the fall of 2004, that he met another woman. The applicant and his wife reconciled; however, he fathered two children out of wedlock, which created stress on his marriage. He and his wife separated again then reconciled. His marital problems led to two arrests for simple battery- family violence. These incidents occurred in 2013 and 2014. He was only convicted for the 2014 charge. g. The applicant began to receive counseling for his behavior in 2013. He received individual counseling through the Family Advocacy Program at Fort Benning. Additionally, he and his wife sought marriage counseling at their church. He also participated in anger management counseling at his church. Further, he sought help for his PTSD and major depression, including with the post-deployment group from December 2014 until he was separated. He went through the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) before he was separated. The Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) proposed an assigned rating of 50 percent for his mental disabilities. Instead of a medical retirement, the applicant received a general discharge for misconduct, because a general concluded the applicant’s "condition was not the direct or substantial contributing cause." h. It should be noted the majority of the applicant's 23-year military career is of honorable service. Additionally, his personal problems never interfered with his ability to do his job. He remained professional in executing his duties in the Army. His service records show he has been dealing with the symptoms of PTSD since he returned from Iraq in April 2004. On his Post-Deployment Health Assessment, dated 3 August 2004, he noted that he had been "feeling down, depressed, or hopeless a lot." However, he did not receive any treatment for his depressed feelings or any other PTSD-related symptoms until after his arrest 9 years later when he was ordered to seek treatment. i. On 3 September 2014, former the Secretary of Defense issued guidance to the Military Department Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records, addressing how the Boards should handle veterans who claim PTSD in their application for discharge upgrade. The guidance states if PTSD may reasonably be determined to have contributed to the misconduct, the PTSD-conditions "will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service." Specifically, the guidance applies in the applicant's case because "it directs the Boards to give liberal consideration when civilian providers diagnose." j. In 2014, a licensed clinical psychologist with the Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center, diagnosed the applicant with PTSD. The psychologist stated the applicant's "chronic major depression and PTSD has exacerbated long standing problems in his marriage." Most importantly, a physician board certified in the American Society of Addiction Medicine opined the applicant's "psychiatric disorder is the underlying reason for his misconduct while in the Army and the reason of his discharge.'' k. The applicant still deals with his Iraq experiences. He traveled all over the country. Not only did he witness dead bodies on the side of the roads, he had to ride in the back of a C-130 plane with body bags containing dead Soldiers. Counsel restates the incident involving the female Soldier screaming due to having to ride on the plane with the body bags. l. He suffers from panic attacks that results in chest pain and heavy sweating. He distances himself from his family and friends, and constantly feels isolated as a result of his PTSD. Additionally, he experiences sadness, anger outbursts, extreme mood swings, paranoia, difficulty with trusting others, he struggles with effective communications, and maintaining interpersonal relationships. He recently enrolled in the Emory Healthcare Veterans Program for treatment of PTSD and other mental disabilities, including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, and other specified trauma, and stressor-related disorders. m. The applicant also started drinking heavily between 2004 and 2005, and using marijuana and cocaine. He has diagnoses for alcohol use disorder and other substance use disorder in early remission. Please note: "studies indicate that substance abuse is significantly related to PTSD because alcohol or drug use is a method of coping with intrusive thoughts, nightmares, insomnia, and hyper-alertness." n. The applicant's therapists noted his mental issues are rooted to his Iraq deployment. One therapist stated, the applicant described a lot of his emotional issues stems from being exposed to combat and that he was not honest with himself or the military upon returning stateside. Additionally, the therapist noted the applicant has long standing issues that have been suppressed for a long time. Another therapist stated the applicant is working on all the issues associated with the trauma of his most recent deployment. o. The applicant has been working to get better by continuing to seek therapy with psychologist at the Southern Crescent Outpatient Program. Recently, he was accepted into the Emory Healthcare Veterans Program for treatment of mental disorders. Additionally, the applicant and his wife continue to work on their marriage by seeking marriage counseling. Due to his general discharge, his family has been unable to stay on TRICARE and thus, currently, they do not have health insurance. Furthermore, he has been denied the benefits of a medical retirement. p. The applicant was diagnosed with both PTSD and chronic major depression by a licensed clinical psychologist. The applicant is traumatized by his experiences in Iraq. On the Post Deployment Health Assessment, dated 3 August 2004, he marked "Yes" in response to the question: "Did you see anyone wounded, killed or dead during this deployment?" He also answered "Yes" to the question: "During this deployment, did you ever feel that you were in great danger of being killed?" Additionally, he noted that he had been feeling depressed since returning from deployment. He was diagnosed with "other specified depressive disorder," in 2010. His records state this disorder did not exist prior to service and the disorder was incurred while entitled to base pay. The psychologist opined the applicant's "psychiatric disorder is the underlying reason for his misconduct while in the Army and the reason for his discharge from the military. Finally, the applicant has no history of misconduct or marital issues before his deployment to Iraq. Therefore, his PTSD should be viewed as a mitigating factor in his discharge action. q. The Board should consider the length and quality of the applicant's 23 years of service, the previous honorable discharge in 2004, his continued dedication to receive therapy and treatment for PTSD and other mental disorders, and his commitment to both his marriage and family. It would be inequitable to deny his request to upgrade his discharge to honorable and change his narrative for discharge to medical retirement. Counsel reiterates how the applicant and his family are being deprived of his benefits. 3. Counsel provides: * Letter, written to the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), dated 30 March 2016 * Counsels statement of the applicant's case/argument, undated * Applicant's statement, dated 30 March 2016 * DD Form 2796 (Post-Deployment Health Assessment), dated 8 March 2004 * DD Form 214, dated 3 April 2004 * Army Human Resources Command Form 4143 (Enlisted Record Brief), dated 24 September 2013 * Memorandum for Record (MFR), subject: Character Witness for [Applicant] Chapter 14-12c, dated 21 October 2013 * MFR, subject: Recommendation and Character Reference for [Applicant], dated 22 October 2013 * Letters from the Center for Family Life Principles, dated 1 November 2013 and 7 December 2015 * MFR from Ms. MTF, Licensed Clinical Social Worker, dated 6 November 2013 * Court Order for Administrative Dismissal, dated 12 November 2013 * Letters from Mr. TB, Licensed Master Social Worker at the Southern Crescent Behavioral Health System, dated 24 July 2014 and 13 August 2014 * Memorandum, subject: Request to Reinstate Discharge Suspension for [Applicant], dated 20 August 2014 * Memorandum, subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval/Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD, dated 3 September 2014 * Letter from Dr. JLF, MD, dated 8 October 2014 and 15 December 2015 * DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 16 December 2014 * Standard Form (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 27 January 2015 * VA Form (Mental Disorders (other than PTSD and Eating Disorders) Disability Benefits Questionnaire), dated 30 March 2015 * Medical Record, dated 31 March 2015 * IDES Narrative Summary (NARSUM), dated 21 April 2015 * DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings), dated 21 April 2015 * Court Order to Modify Probation Conditions, dated 15 June 2015 * Letter from the VA, dated 2 July 2015 * MFR, subject: Mental Health Status of [Applicant], dated 17 July 2015 * Memorandum, subject: Decision Memorandum - [Applicant], dated 13 August 2015 * Three DD Forms 214 for the period ending 30 September 2015 * Letter, dated 5 January 2016 * Letter from the ARBA Case Management Division, dated 11 October 2016 * Counsel's response to the advisory opinion, dated 2 November 2016 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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (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 enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 21 January 1992. He was ordered to active duty for training (ADT) on 30 June 1992 and he was honorably released from ADT on 15 January 1993. The following day, he was transferred to his Reserve unit. He reenlisted in the USAR on 17 May 1998. 3. Orders 068-0402, dated 8 March 2004, show the applicant was released from active duty, effective 3 April 2004. The DD Form 214 for this period of service shows he was honorably released from active duty on 3 April 2004, under the provisions of chapter 4, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), due to completion of required active service. He completed 1 year, 1 month, and 24 days of active service this period; he also completed 1 year of foreign service. 4. Orders Number R-04-574358, published by HRC, on 18 April 2005, ordered him to active duty in an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) status, with a report date of 16 May 2005. 5. On 26 June 2006, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent from his unit from 22 to 23 May 2006 and for wrongfully charging a membership to the American Airlines Admirals Club to his government travel card. 6. On 12 November 2013, the State Court of Henry County, State of Georgia administratively dismissed his charge for Simple Battery Family Violence that occurred on 22 July 2013. The dismissal states: [The applicant] was arrested for Simple Battery Family Violence that arouse on [22 July 2013] against the victim, [the applicant's wife]. [The applicant's wife] provided a written statement to the State requesting dismissal of the charges against the [applicant]. [The applicant’s wife] advised that she has been married to the [applicant] for sixteen years and this is the first time he has ever been physical towards her. [The applicant's wife] stated they are currently in individual and family counseling to resolve their differences. [The applicant’s wife] advised that she is not afraid of the [applicant]. At [the wife's] request, the State is administratively dismissing the request. 7. Counsel provides letters from the Southern Crescent Behavioral Health System that indicate he received treatment in an outpatient program in July and August 2014. His diagnosis is listed as major depression. The social worker stated the applicant attempted suicide on 17 June [2014]. The applicant indicated "a lot of his emotional issues stem from being exposed to combat and that he was not honest with himself or the military upon returning stateside." 8. He provides character references from a Master Sergeant (MSG) (G-8 Senior Management Advisor) and a Sergeant Major (Senior Training and Doctrine Command Liaison) who both recommended the applicant’s retention in the AGR program based on his outstanding work performance and professionalism. The MSG expressed the applicant's personnel life did not affect his work performance and he did not compromise his duties as a finance noncommissioned officer (NCO). Additionally, the MSG stated although the applicant's transgressions occurred prior to his assignment to his unit, they should not be a primary factor for chaptering him out of the AGR program. 9. On 26 June 2014, the applicant received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) for engaging in an extra-marital affair with a woman not his wife and for repeated acts of domestic violence toward his wife. The commanding general stated on or about 22 July 2013, the applicant was accused of Simple Battery-Family Violence and on or about 12 November 2013 and the Solicitor General administratively dismissed the criminal case against the applicant at the request of his wife. 10. The Army Reserve-Medical Command (MEDCOM) Administrative Separation Board found the applicant violated Article 134 of the UCMJ by participating in sexual intercourse and fathering two children with a person other than his spouse. On or about 16 May 2014, he was arrested for Simple Battery-Family Violence. A police report shows witnesses stated they saw the applicant enter a salon and assault his wife. This general officer indicated it was his intention to file the GOMOR in the applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 11. Memorandum, subject: Request for Reprimand Dismissal - [Applicant], dated 20 August 2014 shows the applicant acknowledged: a. He was solely responsible for his own actions and choices and could not blame others for his actions and choices. Hopefully, these actions and choices could be understood and excused as mental health issues. b. He is now a born-again believer of Jesus Christ and he is an active member of his church. He has achieved a degree in Business and a Bachelor's Degree in Accounting. c. He was arrested, on 26 July 2013, for an argument he had with his wife that occurred on 22 July 2013. The arrest was dismissed by the Solicitor's office and has been expunged from his record. He was arrested again on 16 May 2014 for simple battery-family violence. d. He and his wife separated several times after he returned from Iraq in 2004. He cannot deny that he committed adultery, but this was a lack of judgement on his part at a time he was vulnerable and did not know how to ask for help. Although he had major problems in his marriage, they have not been a distraction to his performance of his duties as an NCO. He and his wife are now working with professional therapists to resolve their relationship and emotional problems. 12. His record contains a memorandum, subject: Filing Determination Legal Review of Memorandum of Reprimand - [Applicant], dated 21 August 2014 in which the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate recommended the applicant's GOMOR be permanently field in his OMPF. 13. On 24 August 2014, the general officer elected to file the GOMOR permanently in the applicant's OMPF. 14. A DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 16 December 2016, shows a psychiatrist noted the applicant was unfit for duty due to a serious mental condition that was not likely to resolve within 1 year. The psychiatrist indicated the applicant had no obvious impairments, he was cooperative, had normal perception, occasionally impulsive, and had suicidal thoughts. The psychiatrist determined the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings, appreciate the difference between right and wrong, and he should continue with evaluation by the MEB. The psychiatrist also indicated the applicant had been screened for PTSD and mild traumatic brain injury. This form does not list any results of screening for either condition. The applicant was diagnosed as having major depressive disorder, moderate, and PTSD. 15. An SF 600, dated 27 January 2015, shows the applicant participated in a post-deployment group session in January 2015 at the Eisenhower Army Medical Center. The psychologist recorded a diagnosis of PTSD. Based on his psychiatric examination, the psychologist noted the following: Affect: "Broad"; Thought Process: "Not impaired"; Thought Content: "No suicidal ideation. No homicidal ideations" and "there was no evidence of delusions, hallucinations, or ideas of reference." He completed a PCL-C Questionnaire in which he responded: a. "Moderately – 3," for instructive memories/thoughts/images, nightmares, reminders cause psychologic reactions, difficulty remembering experience, and concentration problems; b. "Quite a bit – 4," for flashbacks, reminders cause physical reactions, anhedonia [a psychological condition characterized by inability to experience pleasure in normally pleasurable acts], emotional numbing, and irritability/anger; c. "A little bit – 2," for avoid thinking/feelings, avoid situations/activities, hypervigilance, and jumpy/easily startled; and d. "Extremely – 5," for emotionally distant/cut off, sense of foreshortened future, and insomnia. 16. A VA Form (Mental Disorders (Other than PTSD and Eating Disorders) Disability Benefits Questionnaire)), dated 30 March 2015, shows his mental disorder diagnoses as other specified depressive disorder with anxious distress, alcohol use disorder (moderate), cannabis use disorder (mild), cocaine use disorder (in early remission). The applicant stated he started drinking heavily between 2004 and 2005. He started binge drinking due to problems with his wife. He also smoked marijuana and tried cocaine. He last smoked marijuana during the Super Bowl and he had not used cocaine for some time. 17. The medical records that were provided show the applicant participated in a group session at Eisenhower Army Medical Center in March 2015. The psychologist recorded the applicant's major diagnosis as PTSD and listed major depression, marital problems, and several other medical issues. 18. MEB proceedings, dated 21 April 2015, show an MEB determined the applicant’s condition of other specified depressive disorder with anxious distress did not meet medical retention standards. The MEB determined the origin of this condition as 4 January 2010, was incurred while entitled to basic pay, and did not exist prior to service. These proceedings show he was referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). 19. His IDES NARSUM, dated 21 April 2015, indicated the applicant received a diagnosis of major depression as early as 2010 at the time noted to be associated with marital problems. The applicant recalled that persistent mood related symptoms over the next few years abruptly worsened due to command issues and undergoing separation for adultery, which led to a suicide attempt in June 2014 and hospitalization. He was hospitalized again in October and November 2014 for repeated suicidal ideation and he also was incarcerated for suspected domestic violence. The IDES NARSUM listed several conditions as identified on a DA Form 3947 (MEB Proceedings) including: Other specified depressive disorder with anxious distress (fails retention standards), traumatic brain injury (meets retention standards), alcohol use disorder, moderate (meets retention standards), cannabis use disorder, mild (meets retention standards), and cocaine use disorder, in early remission (meets retention standards). 20. A letter, dated 2 July 2015, from the VA shows service-connection for several of the applicant's medical conditions. PTSD is not listed. 21. An MFR, dated 17 July 2015, from a clinical psychologist stated the applicant had been dealing with chronic major depression and PTSD that has exacerbated long standing problems in his marriage. The clinical psychologist also stated these difficulties have been intractable and treatment had only minimal benefit. The applicant needed continued mental healthcare for the foreseeable future. 22. A Decision Memorandum, dated 13 August 2015, from the Commanding General, Army Reserve Medical Command, states the applicant's MEB-documented condition was not the direct or substantial contributing cause of the misconduct that triggered his elimination action. The Commanding General directed the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, paragraphs 14-12 and 1-33b with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions. 23. His chapter 14 discharge proceedings are not available. His first DD Form 214 for the period ending 30 September 2015 shows his honorable service was voided and he was issued a second DD Form 214. 24. The DD Form 214 the applicant was initially issued on 30 September 2015 contained the following information: a. Item 12f (Foreign Service) contained the entry "0000 00 00" indicating he completed "no" foreign service; b. item 18 (Remarks) contained no entry indicating he was deployed to Iraq; c. Item 23 (Type of Separation) showed he was "DISCHARGED"; d. Item 24 (Characterization of Service) showed "Honorable"; e. Item 25 (Separation Authority) "Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 4"; f. Item 26 (Separation Code) showed "MBK"; and g. Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) showed "Completion of Required Active Service." 25. On 19 November 2015, the Chief, Transition Center, Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Benning, GA, provided the U.S. Army Human Resource Command, Fort Knox, KY, a memorandum requesting the applicant's DD Form 214 with the effective end date of 30 September 2015 be "Voided." This official stated the applicant was discharged from the Army under chapter 14-12c, due to misconduct (serious offense). Due to lack of supporting documentation, a DD Form 214 was prepared with erroneous information. This official also stated that headquarters was not notified of this action until 19 November 2015. 26. On 19 November 2015, the applicant’s previous DD Form 214 was "Voided" and he was issued a new DD Form 214 containing the following information: a. Item 12f, the entry "0000 00 00" indicating he completed no foreign service; b. Item 18, no entry indicating he was deployed to Iraq; c. Item 23, the entry, "DISCHARGED"; d. Item 24, the entry, "Under Honorable Conditions (General)"; e. Item 25, "Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c"; f. Item 26, the separation code of "JKQ"; and g. Item 28, the reason for discharge is listed as "Misconduct, (Serious Offense)." 27. The following letters were provided with his application: a. Letter, dated 7 December 2015, from the Center for Family Life Principles, Tabernacle of Praise Church indicating the applicant and his wife are engaged in marriage counseling. Two facilitators of the program noted the applicant realized the signs and symptoms of his anger and out lash are the results of his diagnoses of PTSD and major depression. These individuals also noted the applicant elected to participate in anger management sessions and therapy for his diagnosed conditions. b. Letter, dated 15 December 2015, from the Director Addiction Services, Anchor Hospital, College Park, GA, who stated the applicant has been a patient since admission to the Southern Crescent Outpatient Program, on 10 July 2014. This physician stated the applicant was discharged on 12 August 2014 and treated for major depressive disorder recurrent moderate. In addition, the applicant's psychiatric diagnosis was the underlying reason for his misconduct while in the Army and the reason for his discharge from the military. c. Letter, dated 5 January 2016, from the McIntosh Trail Behavioral Health, McDonough, GA, indicating the applicant completed a behavioral health assessment on 28 October 2015 and started individual counseling sessions on 19 November 2015. The mental health professionals informed the Department of Veteran Affairs, Atlanta Regional Office the applicant was diagnosed as having adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotion and conduct, other specified trauma and stressor-related disorder, alcohol use disorder, and other substance use disorder in early remission. The applicant reported experiencing sadness, anger outbursts, extreme mood swings, nightmares, paranoia/difficulty with trusting others, and struggling with effectively communicating and maintaining interpersonal relationships. 28. On 6 October 2016, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Behavioral Health Division, Office of The Surgeon General who opined: a. The applicant deployed to Iraq from 2003 to 2004 as a Reservist and he enlisted in the Regular Army [sic, ordered to active duty in AGR program] in 2005. If he had PTSD symptoms at the time, they did not prevent him from meeting accession standards. b. There is no evidence of impaired functioning until 2013 when he was charged with adultery and family violence which triggered the administrative separation process. c. The applicant's first encounter with behavioral health was in September 2013 when he was escorted for a mental status evaluation for administrative separation. He was seen by the Family Advocacy Program for marital counseling from September to December 2013. d. The applicant was hospitalized for 3 weeks in June 2014 after attempting suicide by lying in the middle of the highway, and again in October and November for suicidal ideation. He returned to behavioral health in December 2014 and attended a post-deployment therapy group; he participated in regular individual therapy through April 2015. The group facilitator diagnosed him with PTSD and his individual therapist diagnosed him with major depression. e. The IDES NARSUM and MEB proceedings prepared on 21 April 2015 concluded the applicant’s failure to meet retention standards for other specified depressive disorder, with anxious distress, citing a 2010 diagnosis of major depression associated with marital problems as the medical basis for the decision. PTSD was not included in the list of conditions submitted. f. On 2 July 2015, the VA assigned a proposed 50 percent disability rating for other specified depressive disorder with anxious distress and traumatic brain injury (also claimed as head injury, panic attacks). g. The applicant's behavioral health condition was duly considered at the time of separation as evidenced by the IDES NARSUM and MEB findings. In a Memorandum, dated 13 August 2015, Major General BK concluded the applicant's MEB-documented condition "was not the direct or substantial contributing cause of the misconduct that triggered the elimination action," and exercised his right to proceed with the administrative separation. h. There is minimal evidence to support the applicant's assertion the misconduct leading to his separation in 2015 resulted from PTSD incurred during his deployment to Iraq in 2004. The fact that he did not seek behavioral health treatment until 2013, and only at the suggestion of the command, suggests he continued to perform his military duties and thus met medical retention standards. The IDES summary specifically states he exhibited "persistent mood related symptoms ... that abruptly worsened due to command issues and undergoing a separation for adultery." It should also be noted that PTSD is not commonly recognized as a participant of marital infidelity. 29. On 11 October 2016, the Chief, Case Management Division, ARBA forwarded him a copy of the advisory opinion to allow him to provide comments. 30. On 2 November 2016, counsel responded to the advisory opinion stating the advisory opinion implies the applicant was first diagnosed with PTSD by his post-deployment group facilitator. However, he was first diagnosed with PTSD on 16 December 2014 by a psychologist at Eisenhower Army Hospital. Additionally, the psychologist found the applicant was unfit for duty due to a serious mental condition. Counsel also states: a. The applicant suffers from depression in addition to PTSD, which was diagnosed as early as January 2010 and that depression is closely related to PTSD. Counsel contends the fact that the applicant did not seek out behavioral health treatment immediately upon returning home from Iraq is not unusual among service members. Dr. B explained the "[applicant] described a lot of his emotional issues stemmed from being exposed to combat and he was not honest with himself or the military upon returning stateside." Additionally, Dr. B noted the "[applicant] has long standing issues that have been suppressed for a long period of time." b. The applicant's problems did not manifest until after he served in Iraq and was an ideal Soldier prior to deployment. However, the applicant came home a different person because of his experiences in Iraq which caused friction at home. Counsel stated that even if PTSD was not commonly recognized as a precipitant of marital infidelity as the advisory opinion notes, people with PTSD do experience problems in their relationships. c. The applicant would also like to request removal of the loss of his security clearance and that his retirement, medical, and dental benefits be reinstated. 31. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) indicated the applicant received HFP/imminent danger pay (IDP) and combat zone tax exclusion (CZTE) from 10 April 2003 through 9 April 2004 (1 year) for service in Kuwait/Iraq. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 1-33 states, except in separation actions under chapter 10 (for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial) and as provided in paragraph 1–33b of this regulation, disposition through medical channels takes precedence over administrative separation processing. b. Paragraph 1-33b states, when the medical treatment facility (MTF) commander or attending medical officer determines that a Soldier being processed for administrative separation under chapter 14 does not meet the medical fitness standards for retention, the MTF commander will refer the Soldier to an MEB in accordance with Army Regulation 40–400 (Patient Administration). The administrative separation proceedings will continue; however, the final action by the separation authority will not be taken pending the results of the MEB. c. Paragraph 1-33b(1) states, if the MEB findings indicate that referral of the case to a PEB is warranted for disability processing under the provisions of Army Regulation 635–40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), the MTF commander will furnish copies of the approved MEB proceedings to the Soldier’s General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) and unit commander. The GCMCA may direct, in writing, that the Soldier be processed through the physical disability system when action under the UCMJ has not been initiated, and one of the following has been determined: (1) Paragraph 1-33b(1)(a) states the Soldier’s medical condition is the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative elimination. (2) Paragraph 1-33b(1)(b) states that other circumstances of the individual case warrant disability processing instead of further processing for administrative separation. d. Paragraph 1-33b(3)(c) that disability processing is inappropriate if the conditions in paragraphs 1-33b(1)(a) and 1-33b(1)(b) do not apply, if UCMJ action has been initiated, or if the Soldier has been medically diagnosed as drug dependent under paragraph 14-12c. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and absence without leave. It states in: a. Paragraph 14-2 states action will be taken to separate a Soldier for misconduct when it is clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him/her as a satisfactory Soldier, further effort is unlikely to succeed and rehabilitation is impracticable or the Soldier is not amenable to rehabilitation (as indicated by the medical or personal history record). The provisions of paragraph 1–33 of this regulation must have been complied with, if applicable. b. Paragraph 14-3 states a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. c. Paragraph 14-12 states Soldiers are subject to action per this section for the commission of a serious offense. A separation for the commission of a serious military or civil offense is warranted if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. Paragraph 14-12c(2) states that abuse of illegal drugs is serious misconduct. The separation reason in all separations authorized by this paragraph will be "misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs." d. Paragraph 3-7a states 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. 3. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the SPD codes to be used for these stated reasons. The regulation shows the SPD code of "JKQ" as shown on the applicant's DD Form 214 specified the narrative reason for separation as involuntary release or transfer for "misconduct" and the authority for separation under this SPD is "chapter 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200." 4. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It established standardized policy for preparation of the DD Form 214. The regulation stated: a. item 12f, enter the total amount of foreign service completed during the period covered by the DD Form 214. b. item 18, for a Reserve Soldier ordered to active duty and deployed to a foreign country, enter the following three statements in succession: (1) "ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY IN SUPPORT OF (OPERATION NAME) PER 10 USC (applicable section)." (2) "SERVICE IN (NAME OF COUNTRY DEPLOYED) FROM (inclusive dates for example, YYYYMMDD - YYYYMMDD)." (3) "SOLDIER COMPLETED PERIOD FOR WHICH ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY FOR PURPOSE OF POSTSERVICE BENEFITS AND ENTITLEMENTS." c. item 28, enter the narrative reason for separation based on regulatory or other authority and can be checked against the cross-reference table in Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes). 5. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. The unfitness must be of such a degree that a Soldier is unable to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty. Paragraph 4-3 states an enlisted Soldier may not be referred for or continue physical disability processing when action has been started under any regulatory provision which authorizes a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 6. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides for disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his or her office, rank, grade, or rating because of a disability incurred while entitled to basic pay. 7. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rated at least 30%. 8. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rated at less than 30%. Section 1212 provides that a member separated under section 1203 is entitled to disability severance pay. 9. 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." 10. 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. 11. 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 (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. 12. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and BCMs/NRs to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 13. 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? 14. Although 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 presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time. a. 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 under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. b. 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 under other than honorable conditions. 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. 15. Army Regulation 380-67 (Personnel Security Program), paragraph 7-2(b) states that a personnel security clearance remains valid until (1) the individual is separated from the Armed Forces; (2) separated from DOD civilian employment; (3) has no further official relationship with DOD or other Federal agencies; (4) official action has been taken to deny, revoke, or suspend the clearance or access, or (5) regular access to the level of classified information for which the individual holds a clearance is no longer necessary in the normal course of his or her duties. If an individual resumes the original status of (1), (2), (3), or (5) above, no single break in the individual’s relationship with DOD exists greater than 12 months, and/or the need for regular access to classified information at or below the previous level recurs, the appropriate clearance shall be reissued without further investigation or adjudication provided there has been no additional investigation or development of derogatory information. 16. Paragraph 7-2(c) states personnel security clearances of DOD military personnel shall be granted, denied, or revoked only by the designated authority of the parent military department. Issuance, reissuance, denial, or revocation of a personnel security clearance by any DOD component concerning personnel who have been determined to be eligible for clearance by another component is expressly prohibited. Investigations conducted on Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel by Defense Investigative Service will be returned only to the parent service of the subject for adjudication regardless of the source of the original request. The adjudicative authority will be responsible for expeditiously transmitting the results of the clearance determination. As an exception, the employing DOD component may issue an interim clearance to personnel under their administrative jurisdiction pending a final eligibility determination by the individual’s parent component. Whenever an employing DOD component issues an interim clearance to an individual from another component, written notice of the action shall be provided to the parent component. 17. Army Regulation 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. Additionally, applicants may be represented by counsel at their own expense. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's service record shows he was ordered to active duty on 18 April 2005 in an AGR status with a report date of 16 May 2005. 2. The applicant's service record shows he received an Article 15 on 26 June 2006 for being absent from his unit and violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully charging membership in the American Airlines Admirals Club to his government travel card. 3. The MEB proceedings show the applicant had a medical condition of other specified depressive disorder with anxious distress. The MEB found the applicant's condition began on 4 January 2010, did not exist prior to service, was incurred while entitled to base pay, and he failed retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), paragraph 3-32. 4. The evidence of record shows the applicant was arrested for simple battery/family violence. He committed adultery and fathered two children with a woman not his wife. He received a GOMOR for engaging in an extra-marital affair with a woman not his wife and for repeated acts of domestic violence towards his wife. 5. The applicant was command-directed for a behavioral health evaluation for proposed separation action. At the time of his evaluation, the psychiatrist listed his diagnoses as major depressive disorder, moderate and PTSD. 6. The applicant and counsel both contend his PTSD should be a mitigating factor in his discharge. However, his service record shows his referral for discharge proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 was based on his acts of misconduct of adultery and domestic violence towards his wife. 7. The applicant's medical records dated in January and March 2015 indicate a clinical psychologist at the Eisenhower Army Medical Center noted the applicant had been dealing with major depression and PTSD. 8. The commanding general at the Army Reserve MEDCOM issued a decision-memorandum in August 2015 stating the applicant's MEB-documented condition was not the direct or substantial contributing cause of the misconduct that triggered the elimination action. 9. Soldiers who suffered from PTSD or other mental health or behavioral health conditions, who were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event, warrant careful consideration for the possible re-characterization of their overall service. 10. The evidence of record shows the applicant was evaluated by a MEB on 21 April 2015 and diagnosed with other specified depressive disorder with anxious distress. It appears that his physical disability processing was discontinued because separation action had been started under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct. 11. Although an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, it appears the separation authority determined the applicant's overall service met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty to warrant a general under honorable conditions discharge. 12. His service does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance for Army personnel, for an honorable character of service, as stated in Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a. 13. The advising psychiatrist for this case found that: a. There is minimal evidence to support the applicant's assertion that the misconduct leading to his separation in 2015 resulted from PTSD incurred during his deployment to Iraq in 2004. b. The fact that he did not seek BH treatment until 2013, and only at the suggestion of command, suggests that he continued to perform his military duties and thus met medical retention standards. c. The IDES summary specifically states that he exhibited "persistent mood related symptoms ... that abruptly worsened due to command issues and undergoing chapter separation for adultery." It should also be noted that PTSD is not commonly recognized as a precipitant of marital infidelity. 14. The applicant and counsel contend that his general under honorable conditions discharge has deprived him and family of benefits. However, there are no provisions in Army regulations that allow the upgrade of a discharge for the sole purpose of securing veteran's benefits. 15. The evidence of record shows the applicant was erroneously issued a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 30 September 2015 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 4 for completion of required active service. This DD Form 214 was later voided. 16. The applicant's discharge packet is not available for review; however, he was issued a DD Form 214 that properly reflects he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct (serious offense) with service characterized as general under honorable conditions. He received a separation code of "JKQ." The SPD code of "JKQ" was the appropriate code for the applicant based on the guidance provided in Army Regulation 635-5-1 for Soldiers separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct. The SPD code entered on his DD Form 214 is consistent with the authority and reason for discharge. 17. Information received from DFAS confirm the applicant received HFP/IDP and CZTE for the period 10 April 2003 to 9 April 2004 (1 year) for service in Kuwait/Iraq. Based on the governing regulation in effect at the time, only the foreign service completed during the period covered by the DD Form 214 will be listed on the DD Form 214. 18. Since the applicant completed his foreign service during the period covered by the DD Form 214, ending 3 April 2004, this foreign service is not authorized to be entered on his DD Form 214 for the period ending 30 September 2015. However, this foreign service is not shown in item 18 of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 3 April 2004. 19. The applicant's request for removal of the loss of his security clearance was considered. Based on the governing regulation, a personnel security clearance remains valid until the individual is separated from the Armed Forces. Since he was discharged from active duty, his security clearance was appropriately revoked. 20. The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was also considered. However, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant and his 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. 21. There are no provisions in Army regulations that allow the upgrade of a discharge for the sole purpose of securing veteran's benefits, or reinstating a security clearance. The applicant must provide evidence to prove the discharge was rendered unjustly, in error, or that there were mitigating circumstances. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007420 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007420 19 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2