ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 6 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160011616 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his prior requests for upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * 16 pages of self-authored statements * prior Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Record of Proceedings in Docket for Docket Number AR20100024277, dated12 April 2011 * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim) * DD Form 4 (Enlistment Contract –Armed Forces of the United States) * Armed Forces Examining and Entrance Station Special Orders Number 249 * Headquarters, 2nd Armored Division, Special Orders Number 83 * DA From 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) * Headquarters, 2nd Armored Division Special Orders Number 111 * compassionate leave message (partially illegible) * Headquarters 7th Infantry Division Special Order Number 070 * birth certificate * DA Form 1315 (Reenlistment Data) * Headquarters, U.S. Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill Special Orders Number 364 * numerous pages of military medical records * letter to applicant’s former wife * Standard Form 89 (Report of Medical History) * Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination) * discharge packet * DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge * Congressional Inquiry FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Numbers AR20090020740 on 12 August 2010 and AR20100024277 on 12 April 2011. 2. The applicant states: a. He is an Army veteran in the twilight of his life, compelled to continue his efforts to clear his name. The characterization of his UOTHC discharge has been a terrible burden throughout his life. He remains driven with whatever time he has left in this life to bring the truth to light in hopes of correcting this long-standing injustice. b. He has provided additional evidence from his service records and further explanation of his situation for consideration to refute the decision arrived at after his application to the Board in 2010. As can be seen from his attached documents, he was a young and immature man under a great deal of stress. He was dealing with a gravely ill mother, a cheating wife who was pregnant with another man’s child (conceived while he was in Korea), and anger over the general everyday racism of the time. All of this combined to push him into making mistakes that would haunt his future. c. Understand that the time of his service, for a black Soldier, was very different than it is today. The racial climate he faced during his time of service in the late 1960s was nothing less than blatantly hostile. His requests for help were met with ridicule, taunts, and laughter. He petitioned the Army for any and all records pertaining to his service, but was never provided the new exhibits until a kind archivist took the time to locate as many of his records as she could find. These records, which were hidden from him, are the corroborating evidence he is presenting to the Board. d. On 23 March 1968 he received orders assigning him to A Company, 502nd Supply and Transportation Battalion, Fort Hood, TX, with a report date of 26 March 1968. These orders were amended on 20 April 1968, but also show he was assigned to A Company, 502nd Supply and Transportation Battalion and not the 502nd Administration (Replacement Company). Nonetheless, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ on 28 March 1968 for being AWOL from the Replacement Company from 25 March 1968 through 27 March 1968. e. He was treated by military doctors in May 1968 for an allergy to gasoline and in October 1968 for a lower back injury during training, both of which caused him to feel anxiety and depression. f. He was reassigned to Camp Casey, Korea in April 1969, very near the Korean demilitarized zone and began having unusual symptoms upon arrival, such as depression, nightmares, flashback, suicidal ideation, and family problems. His wife sent him heartbreaking letters starting in August 1969 stating he needed to come home and that she and the kids were having hard times. He told her he’s talk to his commander about coming home after Christmas. g. He provided a message, dated 22 May 1970 which states he departed on compassionate leave to Lubbock, TX, on 25 January 1970 for 25 days plus a 10 day extension. This document clearly shows both his commander and his unit were aware of his family problems, as they granted his request for compassionate leave. He was unaware his unit had contacted his then spouse requesting to speak to him. He went home because his mother was gravely ill due to a bad heart, to protect his family, and to save his marriage. i. In retrospect, with the wisdom gained through the years, he realizes now that he was not in a proper frame of mind when he was absent without leave (AWOL). He was distraught and disillusioned because he was not earning enough to help his mother and take care of his growing family. His friends from back home wrote to him telling him his wife was cheating on him and pregnant. The last time he had marital relations with her was prior to leaving Texas on 3 April 1969 to report for duty in the Republic of Korea and she became pregnant by another man after his arrival in Korea. When he went home on compassionate leave, his wife was pregnant and delivered a baby girl on 18 April 1970. This clearly was not his daughter. j. He cannot even find adequate words to express the mental anguish his wife’s betrayal caused him. After a return trip to visit his family in Texas in July 1970, he was in such terrible shape that he attempted to commit suicide while home on leave by cutting his wrist and ingesting a bottle of pills on 6 July 1970, and was treated at Reese Air Force Base in Lubbock, TX. He was later released to Fort Sill, OK, but never received any real medical treatment or follow-up help and these problems resulted in him being AWOL again and disciplinary action. k. In June 2008, he received a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) confirming his enrollment in the VA health care system and was issued a VA identification card for treatment at the facility in Lubbock, TX. In July 2008 he receive a colonoscopy at a VA facility and in September 2008 underwent psychological testing where he was diagnosed with dysthymia, with post-traumatic stress disorder features and rule-out psychosis not otherwise specified. In January 2010 he receive a letter from the VA stating the Regional Office in Waco, TX determined he is ineligible for VA benefits. l. He now realized there is no excuse for being AWOL, but he offers these reasons to show the Board that as a young Soldier, he was overwhelmed and suffering from a poor mental state of mind. He trusts the Board will show some compassion and understand how a good Soldier descended into such a poor state. The panel at his court-martial sought fit to not put him in jail and not to give him a dishonorable discharge and they did not know the full story. He was told to keep his mouth shut and not make matters worse by offering any explanation. He was scared out of his wits, suffering from severe depression, and simply complied. 3. The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program on 14 December 1967 and was honorably released form the program for enlistment into the Regular Army on 27 December 1967 4. He provided orders showing he was scheduled for reassignment during training at Fort Hood, TX, from the 502nd Administration (Replacement) Company to A Company, 502nd, Supply and Transportation Battalion with a report date of 26 March 1968. 5. On 28 March 1968, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for absenting himself without authority from his unit, the 502nd Administration (Replacement) Company, from on or about 25 March 1968 until on or about 27 March 1968. 6. His prior reassignment orders from 502nd Administration (Replacement Company) to A Company, 502nd Supply and Transportation Battalion were amended on 20 April 1968, to show his Effective Date of Change of Strength Accountability was changed from 26 March 1968 to 28 March 1968, to account for his period of AWOL. 7. He served in Korea, where he was assigned to Company B, 2nd Battalion, 32nd Infantry, effective 21 April 1969. 8. A message from the 2nd Battalion, 32nd Infantry to the Adjutant General shows: * the applicant departed his unit in Korea on 25 January 1970 on compassionate leave to an address in Lubbock, TX, for 25 days with a 10-day extension * he failed to report back to his unit on 1 March 1970 and was dropped from the rolls on 22 April 1970 * his unit corresponded with his wife at the above address on three occasions in March and April 1970, but did not receive a reply 9. He provided a birth certificate showing his daughter was born on 18 April 1970. 10. His DA Form 20 shows he was AWOL from 3 March 1970 through 12 May 1970 and was in military confinement from 21 May 1970 through 14 June 1970. 11. Headquarters Battalion, U.S. Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill Special Court- Martial Order Number 879, dated 15 June 1970, shows he was arraigned, tried, and found guilty of being AWOL from his unit from on or about 3 March 1970 until on or about 13 May 1970. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months and to forfeit $50.00 per month for 3 months. The approved sentence called for forfeiture of $25 per month for 2 months and the portion of the sentence providing for confinement at hard labor for 3 months was suspended by 2 months. 12. An Air Force Form 565-5 (Clinical Record Cover Sheet), shows at approximately 1130 hours on 6 July 1970, he ingested some drugs at his mother-in-law’s house in Lubbock, TX. The diagnosis shows suicide attempt (stricken through), drug ingestion, and laceration of left arm. The form states all other details were unknown as this did not transpire on a military reservation. Additional documentation indicates he was hospitalized from 6 to 10 July 1970. 13. A letter from his unit of assignment at Fort Sill, OK, dated 27 July 1970, and addressed to his wife, states the purpose of the letter was to inform her of her husband’s AWOL status since 16 July 1970. She was urged to have him return to military control to avoid conviction for desertion, confinement, loss in pay, and a bad conduct discharge. 14. Headquarters, U.S. Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill Special Orders Number 364, dated 30 December 1970, show he was returned to military control in Lubbock, TX, effective 15 December 1970. 15. DA Form 20B (Insert Sheet to DA Form 20 – Record of Court-Martial Convictions), shows he was again arraigned, tried and found guilty by Special Court-Martial of being AWOL from on or about 16 July 1970 through on or about 15 December 1970. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months and forfeiture of $50 per month for 5 months. 16. A Standard Form 88, dated 14 January 1971, shows he received a medical examination for the purpose of release from active duty/discharge. His clinical evaluation was normal and he was found qualified for release from active duty. 17. A psychiatric evaluation, dated 22 January 1971, shows he was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative or disciplinary action and his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability) was recommended. 18. On 9 February 1971, the applicant was notified by his immediate commander of his intent to initiation action to separate him from the Army for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, based on twice being AWOL and his failure to correct his deficiencies after repeated counseling. He was advised of his rights. 19. On 10 February 1971, he acknowledged being advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for unfitness under Army Regulation 635-212. He did not submit statements in his own behalf and he waived representation by counsel. He acknowledged he understood he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and be ineligible for many benefits as a veteran in the event he were issued an undesirable or UOTHC discharge. 20. On 25 February 1971, the approval authority approved the request for waiver of rehabilitative transfer and directed his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate). 21. He was discharged accordingly on 2 March 1971 after 2 years, 5 month, and 3 days of net active service. His DD Form 214 indicates 273 days of lost time during the following periods: from 3 March 1970 through 12 May 1970; from 21 May 1970 through 14 June 1970; from 16 July 1970 through 16 December 1970; and from 22 January 1971 through 17 February 1971. His service was characterized as UOTHC. 22. In the adjudication of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Army Review Boards Agency psychiatrist on 3 January 2019, which states: a. All available documentation was reviewed, including all documents he provided, his available service treatment records, military personnel records, and VA electronic medical record in the Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV). b. A 22 January 1971 memorandum titled “Psychiatric Evaluation of [the applicant]”, authored by RS. M.D., MAJ, Medical Corps, Psychiatrist, states: “This man was and is mentally responsible to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right. This man has the mental capacity to understand and participate in the board proceedings. This man has no disqualifying mental or physical disease or defect sufficient to warrant discharge through medical channels. This condition is not amenable to hospitalization, treatment, disciplinary action, training or reclassification to another type of duty. This enlisted man will continue to be a non-effective soldier throughout his tour of duty. This man is psychiatrically cleared for any administrative or disciplinary action. Recommendation: It is recommended that the subject be separated from the service under provisions of Army Regulation 635-212/206.” c. A 21 January 1971 memorandum regarding the applicant, authored by DB, Chaplain, LTC, states: “I have counseled [the applicant],…,who is assigned to your unit. In my opinion, the above individual will have an extremely difficult time making a success of his military career. Problems at home lead to problems in adjusting to his current assignment. The situation is not likely to improve. I feel that a release from military duty would be in the best interest of the individual and the Army.” d. An 11 February 1971 memorandum titled “Discharge for Unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212”, authored by WF, LTC, Commanding, states: “[The applicant] has been a constant disciplinary problem since his assignment to this battalion…He has served under two battery commanders and has been counselled repeatedly, all to no avail. His problems in this battalion are but a continuation of problems encountered in his previous overseas unit. Transfer within this battalion would not serve any useful rehabilitative purpose. [The applicant’s] elimination from the service would be in the best interest of the Army. Recommend [the applicant] be furnished with an Undesirable Discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.” e. Review of the applicant’s military medical records indicates the following: (1) A Standard Form 600, (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 28 November 1969, diagnoses the applicant with “Hyperventilation with dizziness”. The treatment was “Reassurance”. (2) A Standard Form 600, dated 28 November 1969, states: “Pt to ER c/o dizziness. Patient complains of tightness all over body. Awakened from sleep by loud noise, shaken up. Some dizziness. No other symptoms. PE [physical examination]- negative.” (3) An Air Force Form 565-5, (Clinical Record Cover Sheet), dated 6 July 1970, states: Cause of Injury: “Approximately 1130 hours, 6 July 1970, patient ingested some drugs. Incident occurred at mother-in-law’s home: 2503 Weber…Lubbock, Texas…All other details are unknown. Not on a military reservation.” Diagnoses-Operations and Special Procedures: “Drug Ingestion. Laceration of left arm…” (4) A Standard Form 504, (History, Part 1), undated, states: “…Suicide attempt…man took 10-15 ASA [acetylsalicylic acid, also known as aspirin], 10-15 tetracycline about 2 hours ago. Also superficial abrasion secondary to razor on left arm…” As a result of this overdose, applicant was admitted to the hospital from 7 July until 9 July 1970. He was discharged back to his unit on 9 July 1970 in stable condition. (5) An entrance Standard Form 89, (Report of Medical History), dated 16 November 1967, shows the applicant answers “No” to all of the behavioral health- related queries. (6) A separation Standard Form 89, dated 14 January 1971, shows the applicant answers “Yes” to the following behavioral health-related queries: “Frequent or terrifying nightmares? Depression or excessive worry?” He answers “No” to the following queries: “Frequent trouble sleeping? Loss of memory or amnesia? Bed wetting? Any drug or narcotic habit? Excessive drinking habit?” (7) An entrance Standard Form 88, (Report of Medical Examination), indicates that the applicant was found qualified for enlistment into active duty with a physical rating of 1 1 1 1 1 1. (8) A separation Standard Form 88, dated 14 January 1971, indicates that the applicant was found qualified for release from active duty. (9) There is no indication in the applicant’s military records that he failed to meet military medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501. f. Review of the electronic VA medical record (JLV) indicates the following: (1) A primary care intake note, dated 26 June 2008, indicates the applicant had a positive PTSD 4 Question screen. Based on this screen alone, the applicant’s primary care provider diagnosed him with PTSD and referred him to Behavioral Health for further evaluation and treatment. (2) On 26 June 2008, the applicant was screened by Behavioral Health. Results of this screening indicate the applicant was suffering from depression and anxiety. His Beck Depression Inventory score was 32 indicating severe depression. His Beck Anxiety Inventory score was 21 indicating moderate to severe anxiety. (3) Screening for PTSD was performed. In this screening, the applicant was asked if he had “any history of being attacked, being sexually assaulted, being in a fire, flood or natural disaster, being in combat and/or being threatened with a weapon?” He answered “No” to each of these queries. He answered “Yes” to the following queries: “Any history of being in a bad accident, any history of seeing someone badly injured or killed?” He also answered “Yes” to the questions: “…have you been bothered by repeated or disturbing memories, thoughts, or images of one or more of the stressful events you experienced? In the past month, have you been “super alert” or watchful or on guard?” Based on this screen, the applicant was referred to Psychiatry for further evaluation. (4) On 11 July 2008, the applicant was evaluated by ZS, M.D., VA psychiatrist. In this evaluation, the psychiatrist writes: “The patient reports he was stationed in the DMZ in Korea and not in actual combat. The patient believes his dreams are related to it…He denied any PTSD symptoms as such but does report relationship problems and depression going back to his military experience.” As a result of this evaluation, the psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified and Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. In his subsequent follow up appointment, the applicant’s VA psychiatrist revised his diagnosis to Dysthymic Disorder with chronic anxiety. (5) On 10 October 2008, the applicant was administered the PTSD checklist. His testing results state the following: “On the PTSD checklist the patient obtained an elevated score suggesting posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms of moderate severity. DSM-IV PTSD criteria B, re-experiencing is met; criteria C, avoidance is met; criteria D, hypervigilance is also met. PTSD diagnosis is suggested. Although testing results suggest the presence of PTSD, it is felt that this is an artifact due to the patient’s personal experiences around his military service. The patient was non-combat. The patient went AWOL due to marital difficulties that created a lot of disturbance in his life…Based on this clinical interview and testing results, the following are my diagnostic impressions: Axis I: Dysthymia, post-traumatic stress disorder features, rule out Psychosis NOS…” MM, PH.D. Clinical Psychologist. (6) In his most recent follow-up appointment with his psychiatrist, dated 19 October 2009, the applicant’s diagnosis remained Dysthymia with PTSD features. g. Review of the applicant’s medical history presents a confusing diagnostic picture. The applicant’s military medical records indicate that he had a history of mild anxiety, mild depression and suicidal gesture/attempt while on active duty. His separation Standard Form 89, indicates that he self-reported having nightmares and depression/excessive worrying while on active duty. VA medical documentation indicates that the applicant was initially diagnosed with PTSD by his VA primary care doctor based on the results of a brief PTSD screen. He subsequently underwent psychological interview and psychological testing for PTSD. Both the interview and the testing indicated that he did not meet criteria for PTSD; specifically, he did not meet the DSM IV criterion A requirements of exposure to a traumatic event which involved actual or threatened death or serious injury to self or others accompanied by feelings of intense fear, horror or helplessness. While he answered “Yes” to the questions on the PTSD screen which addressed exposure to a bad accident and/or witnessing someone being badly injured or killed, there is no documentation of either of these events in his military or VA medical records. His most recent VA Behavioral Health diagnoses is Dysthymia with features of post-traumatic stress disorder. h. Therefore, after reviewing the currently available documentation, and, in accordance with the 3 September 2014 Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, it is the opinion of the ARBA psychiatrist that the applicant may have suffered from some type of trauma- and stressor- related disorder while on active duty. However, given the fact that there is no medical documentation of the nature of the applicant’s traumatic stressor(s), the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of this traumatic stressor(s) and the date of this traumatic stressor(s), it is impossible for the Agency psychiatrist to make a determination regarding medical mitigation at this time. i. In accordance with the 3 September 2014 Secretary of Defense memorandum regarding liberal guidance, the applicant’s military records do not definitively support the existence of any behavioral health condition, including PTSD, at the time of discharge. The applicant’s military records indicate that the applicant did meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). There are no mitigating behavioral health conditions. 10. The applicant was sent a copy of the advisory opinion on 8 January 2019 and given an opportunity to provided comments, but did not respond. 11. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD, traumatic brain injury, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based, in whole or in part, on those conditions or experiences. 12. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. 13. Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability), in effect at the time, established policy and procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel who were found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service. It stated an individual was subject to separation for unfitness when frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities existed. When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting evidence, the Board found sufficient evidence to grant full relief and amend the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision in Docket Numbers AR20090020740 on 12 August 2010 and AR20100024277 on 12 April 2011. The Board applied Office of the Secretary of Defense standards of liberal consideration and clemency to the complete evidentiary record, including the applicant’s statement and the medical advisory opinion, and found the applicant’s statement that he was suffering from mental health conditions to be compelling despite the medical advisory opinion that there is insufficient evidence in the service medical record to support the existence of a boardable behavioral health condition at the time of discharge. The Board found the applicant’s honorable service in the form of “Excellence” marks on his DD Form 20, his difficult family situation and his two suicide attempts were deserving of clemency. Therefore, the Board found that the discharge characterization was mitigated and should be upgraded to general under honorable conditions. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 :X :X X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: In addition to the administrative notes annotated by the Analyst of Record (below the signature), The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period ending “2 Mar 71” showing his characterization of service as “General Under Honorable Conditions.” 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): Not Applicable REFERENCES: 1. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD, traumatic brain injury, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based, in whole or in part, on those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge. 2. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. 3. Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability), in effect at the time, established policy and procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel who were found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service. It stated an individual was subject to separation for unfitness when one or more of the following conditions existed: (1) frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; (2) sexual perversion, including but not limited to lewd and lascivious acts, indecent exposure, or indecent acts with or assault on a child; (3) drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana; (4) an established pattern of shirking; (5) an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts; and (6) an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to contribute adequate support to dependents, including failure to comply with orders, decrees, or judgments. When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 4. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. A discharge UOTHC is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial. When a Soldier is discharged UOTHC, the separation authority will direct an immediate reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160011616 6 1