ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
BOARD DATE:  30 May 2019 
DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20160017374 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, clemency regarding his 7 May 1991 general 
court-martial conviction due to a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
•	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 16 July 2016
•	DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the 
United States), dated 16 July 2016
•	Letter from Ambassador, Belgium Embassy of the United States of America, 
dated 13 January 1990
•	Civilian Medical Provider Letter, dated 13 July 2016
•	Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of 
Claim), dated 15 July 2016
•	Letter from National Personnel Records Center, dated 6 September 2016
FACTS: 
1.	The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United
States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military 
Records 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 he was suffering from PTSD while in service and was unjustly 
jailed.  He had honorably served for 13 years active service and was awarded 
several medals including the Army Good Conduct Medal.  He was a good Soldier.  
He provides a letter from the United States Ambassador to Belgium showing he was 
a good Soldier. He now requests, in effect, clemency by upgrading his discharge to 
general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge.
3.	The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 September 1980.  He served as a 
motor transport operator.
4.	On 6 June 1987, he was assigned to the United States Army Europe (USAE) – 
Belgium where he served as a driver for Headquarters Command, USAE, Shape, 
Belgium.  He was promoted to the rank of staff sergeant (SSG)/pay grade E-6 
effective 5 August 1987. 
5.	On 7 May 1991, the applicant was tried before a general court-martial on two 
specifications of violating Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  He pled 
guilty and was found guilty of wrongfully communicating a threat on or about 6 
October 1990 and for maliciously communicating a bomb hoax on or about 13 
October 1990. The military judge sentenced the applicant to a bad conduct 
discharge, forfeiture of $200 pay per month for 9 months, confinement for 9 months, 
and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade of private (PVT)/pay grade E-1.  The 
commanding general approved the bad conduct discharge and reduction in grade.  
He reduced the applicant’s sentence to 7 months forfeiture of pay and 7 months 
confinement.  The record trial was forwarded to the Judge Advocate General of the 
Army for appellate review.
6.	He was confined at the Installation Detention Facility, Mannheim, Germany pending 
completion of appellate review.  In turn, he was transferred to the continental United 
States.
7.	On 25 November 1991, his duty status changed from confinement to present for 
duty.  He was reassigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S. Army 
Garrison, Fort Hood, Texas.
8.	The applicant's conviction was affirmed by the Army Court of Military Review and his 
sentence ordered executed on 5 May 1992.
9.	On 14 April 1994, General Court-Martial Order Number 114 was published stating 
the applicant’s sentence was affirmed and Article 71(c) having been complied with, 
the discharge action would be executed.
10.On 26 May 1994, the applicant was duly discharged and issued a DD Form 214 
(Certificate of Release or Discharge) showing the following pertinent facts:
•	Block 12c (Record of Service – Net Active Service this Period) – 13 years, 1 
month and 23 days
•	Block 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons 
Awarded or Authorized) – among his awards the Army Achievement Medal and 
the Army Good Conduct Medal (3rd Award)
•	Block 24 (Character of Service) – bad conduct
•	Block 25 (Separation Authority) – Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, Section 
IV
•	Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – court-martial, other
•	Block 29 (Dates of Time Lost During This Period) – under the provisions of Title 
10, U.S. Code, section 972 from 8 May to 24 November 1991 
11.	In support of his application the applicant provided:
a.	A letter from the U.S. Ambassador to Belgium dated 10 January 1990.  The
ambassador stated, in effect, the applicant was a loyal, dedicated Soldier who was 
ready to do his duty to the best of his abilities.  The ambassador valued what the 
applicant had done for him and the energy and initiative he exemplified in facilitating the 
mission.  As the applicant was the ambassador’s driver, he got to know him and his 
hopes for the future including his two sons.  The ambassador stated, "You worked to 
erode ethnic barriers and to reduce misunderstandings, and [the applicant] did much 
and achieved some."  He concludes by saying he is sorry to hear of the applicant’s 
problems and that the applicant’s actions were contrary to that of a good Soldier.  He 
acknowledges the applicant’s remorsefulness.   
b.	A letter from a medical doctor of Internal Medicine, dated 13 July 2016, who
states in pertinent part that the applicant has a diagnosis of PTSD based on the 
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) from his period of 
military service.  The doctor does not provide the incident or facts leading to the 
diagnosis of PTSD.  He highlights the applicant’s mental health and his inability to 
establish effective work and social relationships stating the cause was the applicant’s 
military service.  He provides a list of other medical disorders that the applicant 
apparently suffers from such as degenerative joint disease, chronic low back pain, 
generalized anxiety disorders, major depressive disorder and memory loss.  The doctor 
asks the Board to review the applicant’s service treatment records and his record at the 
VA medical center in San Juan, Puerto Rico. 
12.	On 28 March 2019, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) senior psychologist 
advisor provided an advisory opinion.  The advisory found the available 
documentation showed the applicant met medical retention standards for all 
medical conditions and there was no indication for physical disability evaluation 
system processing.  Further the psychologist found no evidence in the applicant’s 
records indicating or suggesting that he experienced any traumatic event during his 
military service.  However, even if the applicant had a diagnosis of PTSD related to 
his military duties, it would not be considered mitigating as a bomb hoax and 
communicating threats are not part of the natural history or sequelae of any major 
mental condition to include PTSD.  A copy of the complete medical advisory was 
provided to the Board for their review and consideration.
13.	The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on 3 April 2019 and 
given an opportunity to submit comments.  He did not respond.
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
After review of the application and all evidence, 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 found the statement and 
evidence of honorable achievements in the form of an Army Achievement Medal, three 
good conduct medals and at least seven years of honorable service to be compelling.  
Although the Board agreed with the Medical Advisory that there is no evidence of PTSD 
as a mitigating factor for the misconduct, the Board found that the applicant’s case 
warrants clemency in that the applicant’s previous honorable service and personal 
meritorious awards did mitigate the single instance of misconduct that resulted in the 
discharge characterization. 
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: 
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 “94-05-26” showing his characterization of service 
as “General Under Honorable Conditions.” 
X 
 
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.	Title 10, USC, 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 Army Board for Correction of Military 
Records (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 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), 
currently in effect, prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to separation of 
enlisted personnel. 
 
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.   
 
c.	Paragraph 3-7c states a discharge under other than honorable conditions 
is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than 
honorable.  It may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, 
or for the good of service in selected circumstances. 
 
d.	Paragraph 3-10 states that a Soldier will be given a dishonorable 
discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general court-martial.  The 
appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly 
executed. 
 
e.	Paragraph 3-11 states a member will be given a bad conduct discharge 
pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial.  The 
appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly 
executed.  
 
3.	Title 10, USC, section 1552(f), provides that with respect to courts-martial ABCMR 
action may extend only to the correction of actions taken by reviewing authorities or 
action on the sentence of a court-martial for purposes of clemency. 
 
4.	Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, provides that the Secretary of a Military 
Department may correct any military record of the Secretary's Department when the 
Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice.  With 
respect to records of courts-martial and related administrative records pertaining to 
court-martial cases tried or reviewed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, action 
to correct any military record of the Secretary's Department may extend only to 
correction of a record to reflect actions taken by reviewing authorities under the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice or action on the sentence of a court-martial for purposes of 
clemency.  Such corrections shall be made by the Secretary acting through boards of 
civilians of the executive part of that Military Department. 
 
5.	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.  It states, in pertinent part, that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each 
case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army 
did was correct.   
 
a.	The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the 
evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent 
evidence submitted with the application.  The applicant has the burden of proving 
an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.   
 
b.	The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional 
evidence or opinions.  Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that applicants do 
not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR.  The Director or the ABCMR 
may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 
 
6.	The Manual for Courts-Martial, Part II, Rules for Courts-Martial, Chapter X, 
Sentencing, Rule 1003(b)(8)(B) & (C) state, in pertinent part, a dishonorable 
discharge applies only to enlisted persons and may be adjudged only by a general 
court-martial.  A dishonorable discharge should be reserved for those who should be 
separated under conditions of dishonor, after having been convicted of offenses 
usually recognized in civilian jurisdictions as felonies, or offenses of a military nature 
requiring severe punishment.  A bad-conduct discharge is less severe than a 
dishonorable discharge and is designed as punishment for bad-conduct rather than 
as a punishment for serious offenses of either a civilian or military nature.       
 
7.	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 type of court-
martial.  However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in 
a courtmartial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, 
which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice.  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 
based on 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. 
 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS// 
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) 	 AR20160017374 
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) 	 AR20160017374 
1 
2 

1