IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 August 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160012698 BOARD VOTE: ____x____ ___x___ ___x____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 August 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160012698 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 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 reissuing his DD Form 214 and showing in the character of service block that his service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general). ____________x_____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 August 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160012698 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect: a. He grew up in an abusive household where his father and other members of his family sexually and physically abused him and other members of his family. He joined the Army in 1989 and deployed in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm. After he redeployed, he began to have nightmares about death and dead bodies. Due to his inability to sleep, he turned to alcohol and tried to kill himself by taking pills. He was saved when another Soldier took him to the hospital. When the doctor asked if he was trying to kill himself, his friend said, “No” because he thought he would be kicked out of the military. So when his Soldier friend got into trouble, the applicant took the blame and the Article 15 for him. b. His mother was always there for him so when he found out she needed him, he spoke with his platoon sergeant who could not tell him what to do but told him if he went absent without leave (AWOL), he should turn himself in within 31 days. The applicant went AWOL and turned himself in at Fort Drum, New York, as suggested. He was turned over to Fort Dix, New Jersey where the commander stated that she had never seen anyone go AWOL and return on time; therefore, she knew people were helping him. He was sent home where he continued to help his mother, brothers and sisters. He requests an upgrade so he can get the help he needs for his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 3. The applicant provides: * a self-authored statement * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * 3 letters of reference 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 Regular Army (RA) on 25 August 1989, at 18 years of age. He completed schooling and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman). 3. The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record), item 5 (Overseas Service) shows he served in Saudi Arabia from 8 August 1990 to 15 March 1991 in a temporary tour of duty status. At the time he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment. 4. Evidence shows on 1 April 1992, he received punishment for violating Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 5. On 27 May 1992, he received a Bar to Reenlistment due to showing a lack of motivation and self-discipline as well as exhibiting no potential for advancement. 6. On 24 July 1992, court-martial charges were preferred against him under the UCMJ for one specification of being AWOL for the period 10 June to 11 July 1992. 7. On 24 July 1992, the applicant consulted with legal counsel who advised him of the basis for his contemplated trial by court-martial and the maximum possible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, of the possible effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and of the procedures and rights available to him. 8. Following consultation with legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged: * he was making the request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person * he was admitting guilt to the charges against him or of lesser-included offenses that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge * he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions * he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits and he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs * he understood he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws * he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, statements in his own behalf were not submitted with his request 9. His records contain a Personnel Control Facility Interview Sheet, dated 17 August 1992, in which the applicant states the reason he went AWOL was because he could no longer take the pressures which were placed on him by his chain of command. He could not do his job as a Soldier, and despite speaking with the command sergeant major, he continued to have problems in the company but nothing was done. He was considering taking his life but went AWOL instead. 10. On 30 October 1992, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The separation authority directed the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. 11. On 16 December 1992, the applicant was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. He completed 3 years, 2 months, and 20 days of net active service during this period with 7 months and 8 days foreign service. He accrued lost time for the period 10 June to 11 July 1992. 12. There is no evidence in his official military records and he provides no evidence, which shows a licensed medical provider examined the applicant and diagnosed him with PTSD. 13. There is no evidence indicating he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 14. The applicant provides three character reference letters. The letters speak to his positive post-service employment while working with at-risk kids as a youth aide in juvenile corrections the past 14 years. His sister further speaks to the household abuse and the sacrifices her brother has made. She further states, in effect, her brother needs help and she prays the Board will assist him in receiving the help he needs. 15. On 13 April 2018, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Army Review Boards Agency Medical Advisor/Psychologist, who stated a review of the available documentation found insufficient evidence of a medical disability or condition which would support a change to the character or reason for discharge. Based on the information available for review, the applicant did not have mitigating medical or behavioral health condition(s) for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. 16. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion for review and comment. On 27 April 2018, the applicant stated, in effect, that he believes his request was being denied based on the fact that no records had been found and that he never showed signs of PTSD prior to his discharge. The applicant claims prior to his discharge he requested medical care, counseling, to speak with a chaplain and to be transferred closer to home none of which was ever granted. The officer who took his statement showed sympathy and empathy for him, then called the company first sergeant. The applicant told his first sergeant that he wanted to go home and take care of his mother and family, and the first sergeant gave him his best wishes. The applicant was told the first sergeant could have recommended he be punished. The applicant stated his mother was in a life and death situation and as a young man, he chose to save her and his family. He claims if he did not care about his service, he would have just stayed away and never looked back. However, he came back to the Army hoping to continue to serve but when he was given the option to return home he took it. He was told by an officer that she had never seen anyone return in 31 days. She also told him that he would be able to upgrade his discharge in six months. He thought the discharge would be automatically upgraded and he just wanted it. He claims he is just a simple man, not a lawyer and asks whether everything is a lie until proven true? Despite the findings of the advisory opinion, which found insufficient evidence of his claims, it does not mean there was no evidence. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. a. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 2. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army PDES and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. a. Chapter 1 states the disability system provides for medical evaluation boards (MEB), which are convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status. A decision is made as to the Soldier's medical qualifications for retention based on the criteria in chapter 3 of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). b. Chapter 3 states the mere presence of impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the member reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade, or rating. The Army must find that a Soldier is physically unfit to reasonably perform their duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before they can be medically retired or separated. c. Chapter 4 states a Soldier who is charged with or under investigation for an offense that could result in dismissal or punitive discharge may not be referred for disability processing unless – (1) The investigation ends without charges. (2) The officer exercising proper court martial jurisdiction dismisses the charges. (3) The officer exercising proper court martial jurisdiction refers the charge for trial to a court-martial that cannot adjudge such a sentence. 3. Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment including officer procurement programs, retention, and separation including retirement. Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, the physical evaluation board (PEB) rates all disabilities using the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. 4. 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." 5. PTSD is unique among psychiatric diagnoses because of the great importance placed upon the etiological agent, the traumatic stressor. In fact, one cannot make a PTSD diagnosis unless the patient has actually met the "stressor criterion," which means that he or she has been exposed to an event that is considered traumatic. Clinical experience with the PTSD diagnosis has shown, however, that there are individual differences regarding the capacity to cope with catastrophic stress. Therefore, while most people exposed to traumatic events do not develop PTSD, others go on to develop the full-blown syndrome. Such observations have prompted the recognition that trauma, like pain, is not an external phenomenon that can be completely objectified. Like pain, the traumatic experience is filtered through cognitive and emotional processes before it can be appraised as an extreme threat. Because of individual differences in this appraisal process, different people appear to have different trauma thresholds, some more protected from and some more vulnerable to developing clinical symptoms after exposure to extremely stressful situations. 6. The DSM Fifth Revision (DSM-V) was released in May 2013. This revision includes changes to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and acute stress disorder. The PTSD diagnostic criteria were revised to take into account things that have been learned from scientific research and clinical experience. The revised diagnostic criteria for PTSD include a history of exposure to a traumatic event that meets specific stipulations and symptoms from each of four symptom clusters: intrusion, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and alterations in arousal and reactivity. The sixth criterion concerns duration of symptoms, the seventh assesses functioning, and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition. a. Criterion A, stressor: The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence, as follows (one required): (1) Direct exposure. (2) Witnessing, in person. (3) Indirectly, by learning that a close relative or close friend was exposed to trauma. If the event involved actual or threatened death, it must have been violent or accidental. (4) Repeated or extreme indirect exposure to aversive details of the event(s), usually in the course of professional duties (e.g., first responders, collecting body parts; professionals repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). This does not include indirect non-professional exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures. b. Criterion B, intrusion symptoms: The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in the following way(s) (one required): (1) Recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive memories. (2) Traumatic nightmares. (3) Dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks) which may occur on a continuum from brief episodes to complete loss of consciousness. (4) Intense or prolonged distress after exposure to traumatic reminders. (5) Marked physiologic reactivity after exposure to trauma-related stimuli. c. Criterion C, avoidance: Persistent effortful avoidance of distressing trauma-related stimuli after the event (one required): (1) Trauma-related thoughts or feelings. (2) Trauma-related external reminders (e.g., people, places, conversations, activities, objects, or situations). d. Criterion D, negative alterations in cognitions and mood: Negative alterations in cognitions and mood that began or worsened after the traumatic event (two required): (1) Inability to recall key features of the traumatic event (usually dissociative amnesia; not due to head injury, alcohol, or drugs). (2) Persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs and expectations about oneself or the world (e.g., "I am bad," "The world is completely dangerous"). (3) Persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event or for resulting consequences. (4) Persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame). (5) Markedly diminished interest in (pre-traumatic) significant activities. Feeling alienated from others (e.g., detachment or estrangement). (6) Constricted affect: persistent inability to experience positive emotions. e. Criterion E, alterations in arousal and reactivity: Trauma-related alterations in arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the traumatic event (two required): (1) Irritable or aggressive behavior, (2) Self-destructive or reckless behavior, (3) Hypervigilance, (4) Exaggerated startle response, (5) Problems in concentration, and (6) Sleep disturbance. f. Criterion F, duration: Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than 1 month. g. Criterion G, functional significance: Significant symptom-related distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational). h. Criterion H, exclusion: Disturbance is not due to medication, substance use, or other illness. 7. As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis and treatment of PTSD the Department of Defense (DOD) acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge 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. 8. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged 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. 9. BCM/NRs are not courts, nor are they investigative agencies. Therefore, the determinations will be based upon a thorough review of the available military records and the evidence provided by each applicant on a case-by-case basis. When determining if PTSD was the causative factor for an applicant's misconduct and whether an upgrade is warranted, the following factors must be carefully considered: * Is it reasonable to determine that PTSD or PTSD-related conditions existed at the time of discharge? * Does the applicant's record contain documentation of the occurrence of a traumatic event during the period of service? * Does the applicant's military record contain documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms? * Did the applicant provide documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms rendered by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider? * Was the applicant's condition determined to have existed prior to military service? * Was the applicant's condition determined to be incurred during or aggravated by military service? * Do mitigating factors exist in the applicant's case? * Did the applicant have a history of misconduct prior to the occurrence of the traumatic event? * Was the applicant's misconduct premeditated? * How serious was the misconduct? 10. Although the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time. Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of 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. 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 to 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. a. Evidence may also include changes in behavior; requests for transfer to another military duty assignment; deterioration in work performance; inability of the individual to conform their behavior to the expectations of a military environment; substance abuse; episodes of depression, panic attacks, or anxiety without an identifiable cause; unexplained economic or social behavior changes; relationship issues; or sexual dysfunction. b. Evidence of misconduct, including any misconduct underlying a veteran's discharge, may be evidence of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or of behavior consistent with experiencing sexual assault or sexual harassment. c. The veteran's testimony alone, oral or written, may establish the existence of a condition or experience, that the condition or experience existed during or was aggravated by military service, and that the condition or experience excuses or mitigates the discharge. 12. 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 begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 13. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense issued a Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments, Subject: Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations. This memorandum provides standards for Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Boards for Correction of Military/ Naval Records (BCM/NRs) in determining whether relief is warranted on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency. Clemency refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence and is a part of the broad authority that DRBs and BCM/NRs have to ensure fundamental fairness. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum; however, DRBs are limited in their exercise of clemency in that they may not exercise clemency for discharges or dismissals issued at a general court-martial. This guidance applies to more than clemency from 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 DRBs and BCM/NRs in application of their equitable relief authority. Each case will be assessed on its own merits. The relative weight of each principle and whether the principle supports relief in a particular case, are within the sound discretion of each board. a. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, an injustice, or clemency grounds, DRBs and BCM/NRs shall consider the following: (1) It is consistent with military custom and practice to honor sacrifices and achievements, to punish only to the extent necessary, to rehabilitate to the greatest extent possible, and to favor second chances in situations in which individuals have paid for their misdeeds. (2) Relief should not be reserved only for those with exceptional aptitude; rather character and rehabilitation should weigh more heavily than achievement alone. An applicant need not, for example, attain high academic or professional achievement in order to demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation to support relief. (3) An honorable discharge characterization does not require flawless military service. Many veterans are separated with an honorable characterization despite some relatively minor or infrequent misconduct. (4) Evidence in support of relief may come from sources other than a veteran's service record. (5) A veteran or Service member's sworn testimony alone, oral or written, may establish the existence of a fact supportive of relief. (6) Changes in policy, whereby a Service member under the same circumstances today would reasonably be expected to receive a more favorable outcome than the applicant received, may be grounds for relief. (7) The relative severity of some misconduct can change over time, thereby changing the relative weight of the misconduct in the case of the mitigating evidence in a case. For example, marijuana use is still unlawful in the military, but it is now legal under state law in some states and it may be viewed, in the context of mitigating evidence, as less severe today than it was decades ago. (8) Requests for relief based in whole or in part on a mental health condition, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI); or a sexual assault or sexual harassment experience, should be considered for relief on equitable, injustice, or clemency grounds whenever there is insufficient evidence to warrant relief for an error or impropriety. (9) Evidence submitted by a government official with oversight or responsibility for the matter at issue and that acknowledges a relevant error or injustice was committed, provided that it is submitted in his or her official capacity, should be favorably considered as establishing a grounds for relief. (10) Similarly situated Service members sometimes receive disparate punishments. A Service member in one location could face court-martial for an offense that routinely is handled administratively across the Service. This can happen for a variety of lawful reasons, for example, when a unit or command finds it necessary to step up disciplinary efforts to address a string of alcohol- or drug-related incidents, or because attitudes about a particular offense vary between different career fields, units, installations, or organizations. While a court-martial or a command would be within its authority to choose a specific disposition forum or issue a certain punishment, DRBs and BCM/NRs should nevertheless consider uniformity and unfair disparities in punishments as a basis for relief. (11) Relief is generally more appropriate for nonviolent offenses than for violent offenses. (12) Changes to the narrative reason for a discharge and/or an upgraded character of discharge granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, the 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 character. b. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, an injustice, or clemency grounds, DRBs and BCM/NRs should also consider the following, as applicable: (1) An applicant's candor, (2) Whether the punishment, including any collateral consequences, was too harsh, (3) The aggravating and mitigating facts related to the record or punishment from which the veteran or Service member wants relief, (4) Positive or negative post-conviction conduct, including any arrests, criminal charges, or any convictions since the incident at issue, (5) Severity of misconduct, (6) Length of time since misconduct, (7) Acceptance of responsibility, remorse, or atonement for misconduct, (8) The degree to which the requested relief is necessary for the applicant, (9) Character and reputation of applicant, (10) Critical illness or old age, (11) Meritorious service in government or other endeavors, (13) Evidence of rehabilitation, (14) Availability of other remedies, (15) Job history, (16) Whether misconduct may have been youthful indiscretion, (17) Character references, (18) Letters of recommendation, and (19) Victim support for, or opposition to relief, and any reasons provided. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant claims a current and past history of PTSD and a desire to receive an upgrade of the characterization of his service in order to obtain medical treatment. The available evidence does not contain any documentation showing a licensed medical provider examined the applicant and diagnosed him with PTSD. 2. His records show he enlisted in the RA at 18 years of age. He served in Saudi Arabia (Desert Storm/Desert Shield) as an infantryman from 8 August 1990 to 15 March 1991. He was nearly 21 years of age at the time he went AWOL. His AWOL was after his foreign service. 3. The applicant's record shows he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Discharges under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 4. Contrary to the applicant's belief, the U. S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. 5. The applicant voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial for being absent for 31 days. All requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The characterization of service he received was commensurate with the reason for his discharge. 6. The Army Review Boards Agency Medical Advisor/Psychologist found the applicant’s medical records contained insufficient evidence of a medical disability or condition which would support a change to the character or reason for separation. 7. Boards are to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part to those conditions or experiences. The 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. a. Evidence may include changes in behavior; requests for transfer to another military duty assignment; deterioration in work performance; inability of the individual to conform their behavior to the expectations of a military environment; substance abuse; episodes of depression, panic attacks, or anxiety without an identifiable cause; unexplained economic or social behavior changes; relationship issues; or sexual dysfunction. b. Evidence may include evidence of misconduct, including any misconduct underlying a veteran's discharge, may be evidence of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or of behavior consistent with experiencing sexual assault or sexual harassment. c. The veteran's testimony alone, oral or written, may establish the existence of a condition or experience, that the condition or experience existed during or was aggravated by military service, and that the condition or experience excuses or mitigates the discharge. 8. The applicant provided three character reference letters. The letters speak to his positive post-service employment while working with at-risk kids as a youth aide in juvenile corrections the past 14 years. The letters also speak to the household abuse the applicant was subject to and the sacrifices he has made. 9. The Board is required to apply the 25 July 2018, guidance to Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160012698 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160012698 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2