ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 December 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160013086 APPLICANT REQUESTS: his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), dated 12 July 2016 * 3rd party letter from, dated 9 June 2016 * 30 pages of medical treatment records related to the above statement * 3rd party letter from Principal, dated 20 April 2018 * DD Forms 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 18 June 2021 and 13 July 2021, with the following documents: * Geneva Convention Identification Card * Hospital records, dated 14 May 2009 * CiOX billing invoice and 2nd set of 14 May 2009 treatment records * medical records copying invoice, dated 14 April 2019, with duplicate copy of 14 May 2009 medical records * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim), dated 30 April 2019 * VA Form 20-572 (Change of Address), dated 30 April 2019 * VA Form 20-0995 (Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim), dated 10 January 2020 * VA claims processing form letter, dated 21 January 2020, with blank VA Form 21-4142 (Authorization to Disclose Information to the VA) and VA Form 21-4138a (General Release for Medical Provider Information to the VA) * VA Rating Decision, dated 18 March 2020 * VA Form 20-0998 (Your Rights to Seek Further Review of Our Decision) * VA form letter notification of decision, dated 20 March 2020 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), Section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states: a. As noted on a DD Form 149, dated 12 July 2016, he was diagnosed with a brain tumor that caused his behavior problems. He was not within his right mind when he committed those offenses. b. As noted on a DD Form 149, dated 18 June 2021, a discharge upgrade is warranted because "it's wrong how they did me. I don't remember the same stuff I sent medical records." Attached to the application is a typed sheet that includes the statement "because they knew that something was wrong with me and put me out a private lied on me and I had to take a lie detector test and passed they knew something was wrong with me so they put me out. I don't remember it." c. As noted on a DD Form 293, submitted by his mother on his behalf, on 13 July 2021, the applicant stated "I feel the tumor changed my behavior and I have medical opinions to back my case." 3. The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 7 May 2002. He was discharged for immediate enlistment in the Regular Army on 27 December 2004. 4. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 December 2004. He served in the Republic of Korea from on or about 31 October 2005 until on or about 8 November 2006, and in Iraq from on or about 18 April 2007 to on or about 20 July 2008. 5. The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army on 15 February 2008. 6. Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital Emergency Room treatment records show the applicant sustained a depressed left orbital floor fracture on 26 August 2009. There is no evidence indicating a line of duty investigation was completed for this injury. 7. The applicant is shown to have been promoted to the rank/grade of sergeant/E-5 and received several Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOER) during the period 1 December 2006 through 30 November 2010. a. All Army Values are check "YES" on all three NCOERs. b. The raters on all three NCOERs marked the applicant as "Fully Capable" for overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility. c. The senior raters on all three NCOERs marked the applicant as "Successful"(2) for overall performance and "Superior" (2, 1, or 3) for overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility. 8. Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 19 November 2010, for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The relevant DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows he was charged with: * being derelict in the performance of his duties, in that he failed to remain at his post as charge of quarters, as it was his duty to do, on or about 8 May 2010 * committing sodomy with a fellow Soldier, by force and without the consent of the individual, on or about 8 May 2010 9. After consulting with his defense counsel on 16 February 2011, the applicant offered a pretrial agreement to: a. Plead guilty to Charge I, dereliction in the performance of his duties. b. Plead not guilty to Charge II but guilty with exceptions and substitutions, excepting the word "forcible" substituting therefore the word "consensual." c. Unconditionally waive his right to an administrative separation board in the event that an administrative discharge proceeding was initiated against him with an other than honorable characterization recommendation. 10. Before a summary court-martial on or about 16 March 2011, at Fort Lee, VA, in accordance with his pretrial agreement, the applicant: a. Pled guilty and was found guilty of being derelict in the performance of his duties. b. Pled guilty, with exceptions and substitutions, and was found guilty with exceptions and substitutions, excepting the words "by force and without" and substituting the word "with." c. His sentence consisted of reduction to the rank/grade of specialist (E-4), forfeiture of $200 pay per month for one month, and restriction to the limits of the post for 45 days. 11. The applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant on 19 April 2011 that action was being initiated to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12c, for the commission of a serious offense with a UOTHC characterization of service. The commander cited the applicant's guilty plea in a summary court-martial on 16 March 2011 for dereliction of duty and consensual sodomy. 12. The applicant consulted with legal counsel on 21 April 2011 and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the possible effects of a UOTHC discharge, and the procedures and rights that were available to him. a. Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, acknowledged that if he received a discharge under other than honorable conditions he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws, and he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. b. The applicant waived all of his administrative rights including to make a statement on his own behalf. 13. The applicant's immediate commander formally recommended the applicant's separation from service on 26 April 2011 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense. The applicant's battalion and brigade commanders recommended the applicant be separated prior to the expiration of his term of service and that his service be characterized as UOTHC. 14. The separation authority, on 20 May 2011, accepted and approved the unconditional waiver of proceedings for an administrative separation board submitted by the applicant, approved the recommended discharge, and directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued a UOTHC discharge. 15. The applicant was discharged on 27 May 2011 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged in the lowest enlisted grade and his service was characterized as UOTHC. His DD Form 214 further shows his awards and decorations included the Army Good Conduct Medal. 16. In addition to the awards listed on the DD Form 214, the available records show he was also awarded the Army Commendation Medal (4th Award) and the Army Achievement Medal. 17. The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a discharge upgrade. The ADRB considered his petition on 22 October 2014 but denied his request for relief. 18. The applicant applied to the ABCMR on 12 July 2016, wherein he requested that his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. In the processing of this request, a medical advisory opinion was obtained from an Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) staff psychiatrist on 6 April 2018. This advisory official opined: a. The documentation reviewed included the applicant’s ABCMR application, applicant-provided medical documentation, the applicant’s military records, the electronic military medical record (AHLTA) and the electronic VA medical record (JLV). b. A DA Form 2823, "Sworn Statement," dated 9 May 2010, authored by states that the applicant, who was on duty at the time, accompanied the PFC to her room and opened her door with the master key because the PFC had forgotten her key. He then left. Sometime later, he used the key to reenter the room without PFC P’s knowledge. She awoke and found him sitting on her bed. He then removed some of her clothing and proceeded to perform a sexual act upon her. She reported she resisted him and told him to leave, which he eventually did. She also reported that she was intoxicated at the time of the incident. c. A review of the applicant’s military medical records (AHLTA) indicates that while on active duty, the applicant received the following Behavioral Health diagnoses: Adult Antisocial Behavior, Alcohol Abuse, Episodic Mood Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder. d. The applicant underwent his Post-Deployment Health Reassessment on 25 November 2008. Part of this reassessment included a neurological examination. This neurological examination indicated that the applicant’s neurological function was within normal limits. His speech and mental status exam were normal. His coordination and cerebellar function were within normal limits. His balance, gait and stance were within normal limits. e. The applicant presented to Psychiatry, on 1 July 2010, with a chief complaint of “…real bad anger issues.” (1) The applicant reported that he had a lifelong history of difficulty controlling his temper. He stated he often had thoughts he could kill someone if provoked. He reported a past history of shooting at his “baby’s mama” when she made him angry by acting out in front of his sister who then complained to him. He reported that he had been in frequent fights with people because he was “pissed off.” (2) The week prior to this evaluation, he reported he put a hot flat iron to his arm with the intent of grabbing his girlfriend around the neck and then dropping the iron into water which he felt would electrocute them. His girlfriend foiled this plan by unplugging the iron. (3) The applicant also reported a history of mood swings and irritability. He reported one episode of loss of consciousness when he fell and hit his head on a dresser (date of this unknown). He denied any history of hospitalizations, surgeries, seizures. (4) He indicated that he repeated the third grade and had been put out of middle school for drinking beer and fighting. He reported he was suspended from high school six times for selling marijuana, cursing out teachers and other behaviors he could not recall. (5) He reported he had used marijuana three times but preferred drinking alcohol. He started drinking alcohol at age 13. He has been charged in the past with possession of marijuana. Additionally, he had a gun possession charge and had also been charged with attempting to run away from police. He received an Article 15 in Korea for fighting with the police. (6) His mental status examination during this assessment was within normal limits with no evidence of hallucinations, delusions, suicidality or homicidally. He was diagnosed with: 1) Episodic Mood Disorder; 2) Antisocial traits. The psychiatrist started him on medication (risperidone) to help reduce his irritability and referred him to Anger Management classes. The applicant was to follow up in 2 weeks (but appears to have not done so). f. The applicant was admitted to inpatient psychiatry at , on 10 February 2011, after telling his girlfriend he wanted to kill himself. (1) On the intake evaluation, he reported a history of irritable mood, multiple fights in his childhood and adult life and a relative lack of remorse for his misbehaviors. He reported a period of elevated mood and increased spending but denied other symptoms of mania. He noted that he had a baseline level of impulsiveness when it came to "women, spending or conversation." He reported he was a "bad kid" and got into trouble all the time with his parents and at school. He admitted to a history of "…theft, a lot of burning things, some potential animal torture, and he stated that he just spent a lot of time ‘hunting’ (which he described with a suspicious laugh)." (2) The applicant also reported a history of significant alcohol abuse. He started drinking in the 5th grade and drank almost every weekend at that time. His drinking increased over time and by age 18, he was drinking every day. More recently, he admitted to drinking approximately 60 drinks per week, 6-8 on weekdays and over 20 drinks on most weekend days. He reported he had received a driving under the influence citation in December 2010 but continued drinking. (3) On his review of systems, he denied stiff neck, loss of consciousness, visual changes, hearing changes, tinnitus, voice changes or dysphagia. He also denied changes in sensation, numbness, paralysis, tingling or seizures. (4) On Neurological examination, he was found to be alert and oriented. His cranial nerves were examined and were within normal limits. Other findings on neurological examination included the following: * normal extraocular muscle movements, normal pupils which were equal and reactive to light and accommodation and normal visual fields * normal hearing bilaterally * normal tongue protrusion and normal midline palate * normal coordination with no evidence of dysdiachokinesia * normal heel to shin and finger to nose bilaterally (indicates normal cerebellar function) * normal gait and stance, down going toes bilaterally (indicates the absence of lesions in the brain, brainstem or spinal cord), no pronator drift (indicates the absence of weakness caused by lesions in the brain, brainstem or spinal cord) * negative Romberg test (indicates normal proprioception and intact spinal cord) (5) As a result of this evaluation, the applicant was diagnosed with Alcohol Abuse, rule out Alcohol Dependence; rule out Alcohol-Induced Mood Disorder; rule out Personality Disorder (Antisocial Borderline traits). (6) He was felt to have very poor characterological impulse control. g. On 16 February 2011, he was evaluated again by Psychiatry after being discharged from the hospital. This note diagnosed him with Antisocial Behavior, rule out Alcohol Abuse and states "Consider Antisocial Personality Disorder." The evaluating psychiatrist also documents in his progress note "…Notes also report manipulation and dishonesty concerning legal past…" h. The applicant’s Discharge Summary from the Naval Medical Center-Portsmouth, dated 15 February 2011, indicates the following diagnoses: 1) Alcohol Dependence without physiological dependence; 2) Antisocial Personality Disorder. His disposition was; “Fit for Duty, but recommend administrative separation for personality disorder”. i. On 7 April 2011, applicant underwent his separation Physical Examination which indicated that his pupillary sizes and responses were normal, his extraocular muscle movements were intact and his neurological examination was within normal limits. j. A review of the electronic VA medical record (JLV) indicates that the VA record contains no information regarding the applicant. k. There is no indication that the applicant failed to meet military medical retention standards. l. The applicant has provided medical documentation that indicates he underwent surgery for a benign brain tumor (neurocytoma) in June 2016. He contends that this undiagnosed brain tumor was responsible for the misconduct which resulted in his under other than honorable conditions discharge from the Army in May 2011. A review of his military medical record indicates the following: (1) Applicant underwent multiple comprehensive neurological examinations while in the military between 2008 and 2011. These neurological evaluations assessed the following areas: cranial nerve function, cortical function, cerebellar function, sensory and motor system function, gait, stance and reflexes. All of these examinations were within normal limits. None of these examinations indicated the presence of brain tumor or increased intracranial pressure (a sign of an intracranial mass). (2) The applicant was diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder while in the military. It was noted that the applicant had a long history, dating back to childhood, of antisocial behaviors to include a lifelong history of irritability, hostility, intermittent homicidal ideation, multiple fights in childhood and adult life, involvement in criminal activity (selling drugs in high school), violent and aggressive behaviors toward women (threatening to shoot at his "baby’s mama," trying to electrocute his girlfriend) and a relative lack of remorse for his misbehaviors. Additionally, it was noted that the applicant had a history of excessive alcohol consumption beginning in middle school. m. The applicant and his civilian physicians contend that his misconduct while on active duty was due to an undiagnosed brain tumor. (1) Review of the applicant’s military medical records, however, indicates that there is no evidence that the applicant had a brain tumor while on active duty. He did present one time in April 2010 with complaints of headache. However, when he was seen for follow up in May 2010, he reported that his headache had resolved. This headache history is inconsistent with the headache history seen in brain tumor patients wherein the headaches become progressively worse over time. With regards to the applicant, there is no other documentation of any headache in his medical records. (2) Of note, his neurological examination at the time of his headache presentation and afterwards continued to remain normal. n. Review of the literature indicates that, on rare occasions, a brain tumor can cause psychiatric symptoms in the absence of physical findings. (1) Typically, these psychiatric symptoms involve the development of new-onset confusion, depression, anxiety, mania, psychosis, dementia and/or changes in personality. Documentation in the applicant’s medical records indicates that he had lifelong (not new-onset) problems with irritability, mood swings, hostility, antisocial behaviors and homicidal ideation. (2) It should be noted that brain tumors typically do not cause afflicted individuals to engage in premeditated, well-organized, predatory sexual behaviors towards other people. Such behaviors are much more typical of the behaviors seen in individuals with an antisocial personality organization. o. In conclusion, it is the opinion of the Agency psychiatrist that the misconduct that resulted in the applicant’s UOTHC discharge is not mitigated by his post-service diagnosis of a brain tumor. 19. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on 11 April 2018, for review, comment or rebuttal, and to provide him an opportunity to submit an additional statement if desired. The applicant's mother submitted a statement in response the medical advisory opinion, wherein she stated: a. The applicant never had a gun and did not shoot at his "baby mama." He did not place a hot flat iron to his arm. His entrance physical does not show scars on his arm. He never tried to kill either his girlfriend or himself. b. She did not recall him ever falling hitting his head on a dresser or losing consciousness. c. The applicant stated he started drinking in the 5th grade at age 13. Age 13 would put him in the 8th or 9th grade. He had never been put out of school for selling, using marijuana in or out of school. d. The military found him "fit for duty" but an x-ray or a CAT scan was never done on her son. Without an x-ray or a CAT scan, how could it be determined he didn't have a brain tumor while on active duty. e. Her son spent 5 years and 10 months on active duty, but within his last year he began to get into trouble. The story he has told shows the confusion. 20. The applicant provides: a. A letter, dated 9 June 2016, from Vice-Chair and Professor, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and, Board Certified in Neuropsychology, Professor, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, at a medical school. The letter states: Over a span of several years [the applicant] has experienced loss of hearing and increasing difficulties with balance and double vision. Imaging of his brain in May revealed a left ventricular mass with diffuse cerebellar atrophy. On March 18, 2016 he underwent surgery for tumor resection, which was identified as a neurocytoma. The tumor has likely been present for several years and is the cause of his progressive decline. It is likely that the tumor and its secondary effects such as causing increased intracranial pressure, contributed to changes in his behavior and cognition. [The applicant] is presently aphasic and cannot communicate easily. His family reports that he received a less than honorable discharge from the Army in 2011 due to behavioral problems he was experiencing. It is likely that his tumor was contributing to these difficulties even at that time. In light of this, the family has expressed a desire to petition for a change in discharge status on his behalf. This would constitute new information that was not available at the time of his discharge and previous appeal of his discharge status. b. A letter, dated 20 April 2018, from Ms. stated: (1) She was familiar with the applicant and his educational and disciplinary experiences while at. (2) The applicant never repeated a grade. He was a normal student and remained with his graduating class throughout high school. He was not a discipline problem and was seen as a typical teenage male. He failed a couple of classes but he worked extremely hard to make up for his shortcomings and he graduated from high school on time. (3) As one of the applicant's teachers, did not recall any major issues, and never noticed any alcohol problems or drinking. The applicant was never expelled from school. c. The applicant and his mother submitted additional evidence in the form of two DD Forms 293, dated 18 June and 13 July 2021, with the submission of medical records and forms. The submissions include: (1) A copy of the applicant's Geneva Convention Card. (2) Copies of the treatment and surgical intervention referred to in the statement authored by Doctors (3) Hospital treatment records, dated 14 May 2009, showing treatment for a depressed left orbital floor fracture on 26 August 2009 (two copies) and a billing invoice for copying of the records with a second set of the hospital treatment records. (4) A VA Rating Decision, dated 18 March 2020, that denied the applicant service connection for a neurocytoma and superficial siderosis. It was stated that the evidence does not show an event, disease or injury in service for these conditions. d. Several VA letters and forms to the applicant, many of the forms were to be completed by the applicant but the copies provided are for the most part blank. 21. The Board should consider the applicant's statement in accordance with the published equity, injustice, and clemency determination guidance. 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 mental health conditions. The Veteran’s testimony alone, oral or written, may establish the existence of a condition or experience, that the condition or experience may have existed during or might have been aggravated by military service, and that the condition or experience may excuse or mitigate the discharge. BOARD DISCUSSION: The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical review and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service to include deployment, the frequency and nature of his misconduct and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the applicant's claim regarding a tumor and the review and conclusions of the ARBA staff psychiatrist. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official regarding his misconduct not being mitigated by a behavioral health condition related to a tumor. The applicant did not provided sufficient evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference to support a clemency determination. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. The Board concurs with the corrections described in Administrative Note(s) below. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF :X :X :X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION 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 making the corrections described in Administrative Note(s) below. 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 upgrading the character of service. 1/19/2022 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): A review of the applicant's record shows his DD Form 214, for the period ending 27 May 2011, is missing important entries that affect his eligibility for post-service benefits. As a result, amend the DD Form 214 by adding the following entries to item 18 (Remarks): * IMMEDIATE REENLISTMENTS THIS PERIOD FROM 20041228 - 20080214, 20080215 - 20110527 * CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 20041228 UNTIL 20080214 REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) states when the separation authority determines that a Soldier is to be discharged from the Service under other than honorable conditions, the Soldier will be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. Further board action is not required for this reduction. 3. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 1-13 stated when a soldier was to be discharged UOTHC, the separation authority directed an immediate reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. b. 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. c. 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. d. Paragraph 14-12c provides for the separation of a Soldier by reason of commission of a serious offense. The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate for separations under the provisions of Chapter 14. 4. The Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRB) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR), on 3 September 2014, to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 5. The Acting Principle Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) provided clarifying guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 24 February 2016. The memorandum directed the BCM/NRs to waive the statute of limitations. Fairness and equity demand, in cases of such magnitude that a Veteran's petition receives full and fair review, even if brought outside of the time limit. Similarly, cases considered previously, either by DRBs or BCM/NRs, but without benefit of the application of the Supplemental Guidance, shall be, upon petition, granted de novo review utilizing the Supplemental Guidance. 6. The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) provided clarifying guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 August 2017. The memorandum directed them to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD, traumatic brain injury (TBI), sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Standards for review should rightly consider the unique nature of these cases and afford each Veteran a reasonable opportunity for relief even if the sexual assault or sexual harassment was unreported, or the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years later. 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. a. Guidance documents are not limited to UOTHC discharge characterizations but rather apply to any petition seeking discharge relief including requests to change the narrative reason, re-enlistment codes, and upgrades from general to honorable characterizations. b. 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. c. Liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade. Relief may be appropriate, however, for minor misconduct commonly associated with mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; or behaviors commonly associated with sexual assault or sexual harassment; and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances. 7. The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) issued guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 July 2018, 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. a. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, Boards 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. b. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//