ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160019718 APPLICANT REQUESTS: his discharge be upgraded from other than honorable to general, under honorable conditions APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Mental Health Evaluation FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous considerations of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR1999031152 on 2 March 2000 and Docket Number AR20150007869 on 2 February 2016. 2. Applicant states his mental health was not considered during his time in service and the changes in his behavior and actions were the direct result of his condition. During his time in service, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was not a recognized condition or labeled as such. 3. The applicant provides: a. A six page “Complete Evaluation/Intake”, dated 6 April 2016, performed by X__ F___, a Certified Registered Nurse Practitioner/Psychiatric Clinical Nurse Specialist. X___ X___ notes applicant’s chief complaint is PTSD. He then discusses applicant’s history of participation in the 1983 invasion of Grenada where applicant described being pinned down by sniper fire for fourteen hours and then later being involved in the cleanup of dead bodies. When applicant returned from Grenada, he began partying every day and treating every day like his last, because he now realized someone could kill him at any moment. He began drinking and using drugs. He re-enlisted, but things got worse for him and he came up positive in a unit urinalysis. He was a specialist at the time and one of the lower ranking men on the totem pole. Many higher ranking people were also using drugs. It looked bad for his unit and his captain and sergeant did not want him to implicate the others. b. He received his other than honorable discharge in March 1985. He first attempted suicide in 1986, because he just could not live with the depression, anxiety, and nightmares anymore. When he returned from Grenada, he had trouble sleeping and would have violent nightmares. He was always fighting, but would never know who the enemy was. He would wake up drenched in sweat and have to shower and change clothes. He could never settle down and is always running. He is sensitive to sudden movement. Due to the severity of his anxiety, his family would have to call ambulances. The first time he was involved with mental health was 2002 after a car accident. That’s when he learned about trauma and began to piece together the impact that his Grenada experience had on him. For the longest time he felt weak and guilty for not being able to handle it. He has not been able to hold down a job since he left the Army. He would have some success and then somehow sabotage himself. He is depressed much of the time. c. X___ X___ notes that applicant continues to have anxiety symptoms, PTSD symptoms, and depressive symptoms. He diagnoses applicant with Generalized anxiety disorder (Active), PTSD, Chronic (Active) and Major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate (Active). 4. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 March 1983. On 18 October 1984 he was discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment for a term of three years. b. He served in Grenada from 25 October 1983 to 3 November 1983. c. He accepted nonjudicial punishment on 22 October 1984 for wrongful use of marijuana. d. Court-martial charges were preferred against applicant on 13 February 1985 for a two day absence without leave (AWOL) followed by an AWOL of over two months duration. e. On 14 February 1985, after consulting with legal counsel, he requested a discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel). He acknowledged: * he was making the request of his own free will and was guilty of the charges against him or a lesser included offense * the potential punishment included a punitive discharge * if his request for discharge was accepted, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions * he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits and of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law * * he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life f. Consistent with the chain of command recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service on 1 March 1985. He would be issued a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions and reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. g. He was discharged from active duty on 20 March 1985 with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), as corrected, shows he completed 1 years, 9 months, and 17 days active service. It also shows he was awarded or authorized: * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge (M-16 Rifle) * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge (Hand Grenade) * Army Service Ribbon * Parachute Badge * Army Achievement Medal * Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (Grenada) 5. On 1 May 2017, the Army Review Boards Agency clinical psychologist rendered an advisory opinion in the processing of this case. He opined: a. There were no medical records indicating applicant was diagnosed with any mental health conditions while he was in the Army. He has made a number of applications to the Army Review Boards Agency and has now included a diagnostic evaluation in which a Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner diagnoses him with three behavioral health conditions based on applicant’s self-report during a forty-five to fifty minute interview. He claims these undiagnosed conditions, particularly PTSD related to his service in Grenada, led to his drug abuse and the accountability issues that resulted in his discharge. However, this is inconsistent with earlier statements made by applicant much closer in time to his discharge, none of which referenced his mental state in any way, but instead focused on the unfairness involved in the situation and that he felt he became a target after his positive urinalysis because leaders had to find people to blame for his unit’s non-deployability, due to drug use. b. Based on thorough review of available medical records, the applicant did not have a mitigating mental health condition that impacted his misconduct. His claims of a mental condition are very recent. He does have a psychiatric history and does now have a PTSD diagnosis. But, the case for him having a mental condition that drove his misconduct is extremely weak. 6. On 8 February 2017, the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for acknowledgement and/or response. He did not respond. 1. 7. By regulation, an individual who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for which, includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, may submit a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged for the good of the service; however, the separation authority may direct a General Discharge Certificate, if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record during the current enlistment. 8. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, to include the DoD guidance on liberal consideration when reviewing discharge upgrade requests, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. Based upon the medical advisory’s finding that the applicant did not have a mitigating mental health condition that impacted his misconduct and the applicant failed to provide a rebuttal to that finding, the Board concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that an error or injustice was present which would warrant making a change to the characterization of service received at the time of discharage. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING X X X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 6/13/2019 X CHAIRPERSON Signed by: 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. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge) states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’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 (General Discharge) states 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. Chapter 10 of this regulation states an individual who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for which includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. A discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged for the good of the service; however, the separation authority may direct a General Discharge Certificate, if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record during the current enlistment. 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 regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence and BCMRs 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 discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. The 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, an injustice, or clemency grounds, BCMRs shall consider the twelve stated principles in the guidance as well as eighteen individual factors related to an applicant. These factors include the severity of the misconduct and the length of time since the misconduct.