ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF:   BOARD DATE:  24 February 2020 DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170001302 


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable. 

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

.Letter from Applicant, dated 13 October 2016

.ARBA Case Management Division Letter, dated 8 January 2019

.DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)

.Self-Authored Statement, dated 16 January 2019

.Letter from Applicant, dated 13 October 2016

.Purple Heart Certificate, dated 30 May 1970

.Army Commendation Medal, dated 6 July 1970

.DD Form 1953A (Clemency Discharge Certificate), dated 17 March 1972

.Presidential Proclamation 4313 of 16 September 1974, Certificate, dated31 October 1975

.Floyd Medical Center Physician Documentation, dated 6 September 2009

.Coosa Medical Group Letter, 5 March 2019

.Two Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Statements in Support of Claim16 January 2019 and 15 March 2019



FACTS: 

1.Incorporated herein by reference are military records, which were summarized in theprevious consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction ofMilitary Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20150013286 on 26 January 2017.

2.The applicant states:

a.The character of his discharge does not reflect the totality of his service.  Alongwith his service in Vietnam, he served honorably in the Air Crash units.  While he was in service, he was injured in a helicopter crash.  He was also shot down in combat.  The stress of serving in Vietnam and performing his duties related to his military occupational specialty (MOS) led to his mental and stress disorders that rationalized the need for him to go absent without leave (AWOL). 

b.He accepts the consequences of his actions.  He was unaware of the fullconsequences of a clemency discharge.  He believed that the clemency would forgive him of occasional misconduct he performed; however, he did not realize the full effect of such a discharge that along with other things affect any eligibility for VA benefits. 

c.There were no mental health screenings like there are today.  He went toVietnam at the young age of 18 years old and he was placed into stressful situations no one could be totally prepared for.  In addition to being shot down in his helicopter, he witnessed the effects of combat while having to transport wounded and dead Soldiers.  It had a constant effect on him throughout his life. 

d.The decision to go AWOL was his own but he felt it was the only way to stay safeat the time.  He had to deal with the stressors of both Vietnam and his occupation in garrison, which included witnessing the fates of test pilots involved in accidents while flying.   

e.He only asks for the full record of his service to be considered by the Board.Although he made serious mistakes by going AWOL, he also feels that a review by the Board is justified considering his honorable service before he was discharged, including his combat operations. 

f.He requested his medical records from VA but in the meantime he has enclosedthe records in his possession for the Board to review. 

3.On 14 May 1969, at the age of 18 years old, the applicant enlisted in the RegularArmy for a term of 3 years.  After completing initial entry training and being awarded theMOS 67V (Helicopter Repairman), he was assigned to an overseas assignment toVietnam.

4.While in Vietnam he was a patient in the Medical Holding Company (MHC), 249thGeneral Hospital from 17 May 1970 to 27 May 1970.  He was then transferred to MHC,Martin Army Hospital, Fort Benning GA.

5.On 2 September 1970, he was assigned to Fort Rucker, AL, with the principal dutytitle of Crash Guard.  On 19 February 1971, he was convicted by special court-martialfor one specification of being AWOL from 6 October 1970 and remaining absent until28 December 1970.  He was sentenced to be reduced to private E-2 (PV2), forfeiture of$50.00 per month for 3 months, and restriction for 30 days.

6.His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows:

a.Item 38 (Record of Assignments):  He received excellent ratings for conduct andefficiency while in IET and from 30 December 1969 to 31 March 1971. 

b.Item 40 (Wounds):  Lower Back Sprain

c.Item 41 (Awards and Decorations):

.National Defense Service Medal

.Vietnam Service Medal

.Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal

.Pistol (45 cal.) Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge

.M16 Rifle Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge



d.Item 43 (Time Lost Under Section 972, Title 10, U.S. Code and Subsequent toNormal ETS (Expiration Term of Service)): 

.28 August 1970 – 30 August 1970; 3 days AWOL

.6 October 1970 –3 November 1970; 29 days AWOL

.4 November 1970 – 28 December 1970; 55 days DFR

.1 April 1971 – 1 April 1971; 1 day AWOL

.16 August 1971 – 14 September 1971; 30 days AWOL

.15 September 1971 – 27 December 1971; 104 DFR

.3 January 1972 – 22 January 1972; 20 days AWOL



7.On 28 December 1971, he was assigned to the Personnel Confinement Facility,
Fort Campbell, KY.  On 22 February 1972, court-martial charges were preferred againstthe applicant for two specifications of being AWOL:  from 16 August 1971 andremaining absent until 28 December 1971 and from 3 January 1972 and remainingabsent until 23 January 1972 (he surrendered to civilian authorities on 23 January 1972and was returned to military control on the same date).

8.On 13 March 1972, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of theservice in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR)
635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  He consulted withlegal counsel and was advised of the basis for the trial by court-martial, his availablerights and the basis for voluntarily requesting discharge under the provision of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  The applicant elected to submit a statement on his own behalf (ifsubmitted, the statement is unavailable for review).

9.His commander recommended approval and on 20 March 1972, the appropriateseparation authority approved the applicant's request directing he be reduced to thelowest enlisted grade and be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

10.On 17 March 1972, he was discharged accordingly.  His service was characterizedas UOTHC.  He completed 2 years, 2 months, and 5 days of net active service this
period.  His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) as amended by DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) shows: 

.Item 11c (Reason and Authority) Chapter 10, AR 635-200, Separation ProgramNumber:  246, For the Good of the Service

.Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, andCampaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized):  None

.Item 26a (Non-Pay Periods Time Lost):  28 August 1970 –30 August 1970;6 October 1970 – 28 December 1970; 1 April 1971 – 1 April 1971; 16 August1971 – 28 December 1971; 3 January 1972 – 22 January 1972

.Item 30 (Remarks):  243 days lost; DD Form 1953A Clemency Discharge IssuedPursuant to Presidential Proclamation No. 4313



11.Letter, dated 16 January 1976, addressed to the applicant, shows he was awardedthe clemency discharge pursuant to the Presidential Proclamation 4313 of16 September 1974.

12.On 20 January 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his petition for anupgrade, determining that he was properly discharged.

13.In 2015, the applicant petitioned the ABCMR to upgrade his character of service tohonorable.

a.He claimed that PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) led to his misconductwhile he was in the military.  At that time the applicant provided his Purple Heart Certificate and his Army Commendation Medal Certificate.  The ABCMR sent correspondence to the applicant requesting that he provide medical documents supporting his PTSD.  The medical documentation was not provided and his record was void of any documentation showing a behavioral health condition, to include PTSD.   

b.The ARBA psychiatrist stated there was insufficient evidence to support theapplicant’s claim that his misconduct was due to PTSD.  The ABCMR denied his petition for an upgrade and requested that the ARBA Case Management Division correct his DD Form 214 to reflect the following awards: 

.Purple Heart

.National Defense Service Medal

.Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze service stars

.Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960)

.Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar

.Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Pistol Bar

.Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation



14.The applicant provides:

a.ARBA Case Management Division Letter, dated 8 January 2019, shows that theiroffice contacted the applicant seeking clarity in the specific action he was requesting.  The letter also requested the applicant to provide his military medical records and any other medical documents to support his stated issue. 

b.Purple Heart Certificate, dated 30 May 1970, which shows he was awarded themedal for wounds received in Vietnam on 12 May 1970. 

c.Army Commendation Medal Certificate, dated 6 July 1970, which shows he wasawarded the medal for meritorious achievement in Vietnam from 1 January 1970 to 30 April 1970. 

d.DD Form 1953A (Clemency Discharge Certificate), dated 17 March 1972, showshe received a clemency discharge in recognition of satisfactory completion of alternate service pursuant to Presidential Proclamation Number 4313, 16 September 1974. 

e.Presidential Proclamation 4313 of 16 September 1974, Certificate, dated31 October 1975, shows he was granted a full pardon.  It states it was granted to the applicant who received either a punitive or an undesirable discharge from service in the Armed Forces of the United States for having violated Article 85 (Desertion), 86 (Absence Without Leave), or 87 (Missing Movement of Ship, Aircraft, or Unit), of the Uniform Code of Military Justice between 4 August 1964 and 28 March 1973, inclusive. 

f.Floyd Medical Center Physician Documentation, dated 6 September 2009,provides a: 

.Discharge Summary regarding a cervical cord compression with right lowerextremity weakness and early spinal cord symptoms, and herniated diskssurgery

.Operative Report

.History and Physical, with a chief complaint of progressive paraparesis



g.A doctor from the Coosa Medical Group, provided a letter of support for theapplicant, dated 5 March 2019.  He states: 

(1)He has been caring for the applicant for 20 years.  Initially, he treated theapplicant for rapidly progressive cervical myelopathy due to severe degenerative disc and osteophytic changes related to significant arthritic changes of the neck.   

(2)The applicant has also been under his care for post-traumatic stressdisorder.  The applicant was a gunner on an Army helicopter and was shot down.  He and crew survived, but he sustained various fractures.  He was able to make it to an 
evacuation site and then from there was treated and brought stateside.  He then continued to serve as a crash guard.  During this time, the patient witnessed numerous helicopter crashes with the deaths of training Army pilots.  This led to a great exacerbation of post-traumatic stress symptoms.  He experienced the deaths in combat and the near death of his own in a helicopter crash. 

(3)The applicant lacked any substantial education, but was able to accomplish aGED (General Equivalency Diploma).  This is very important because he had limited coping skills.  The doctor went on to describe his personal life experiences with the military, having family members of his own who served.   

(4)For years he has treated the applicant for post-traumatic stress disorder.  Heis privileged to have been able to continue helping the applicant and marvel at how he managed to deal with the immense issues as a 19 year old man.   

(5)The applicant will be able to give very specific details but his generalunderstanding is: 

(a)The applicant came back to this country after surviving combat injuries and ahelicopter crash with vivid memories of his comrades being shot down in the field and being under heavy gunfire himself as he was evacuated.  He was in numerous gun battles.  He was then restationed to be a guard over helicopter training crash sites and had to witness and participate in the removal of pilots that were killed.  This resulted in such flashbacks and inability to deal with his emotions with anger and frustration that on more than one occasion he went AWOL.   

(b)There were no resources for him to deal with these feelings and he just knewthat he would emotionally explode had he not removed himself from the circumstance. He has experienced classical symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder including flashbacks in the moment of dealing with these fallen pilot trainees as well as dreams and anxiety.  He turned to God and found his current wife.  She has been instrumental in his recovery as has his primary care physician.  The doctor is part of his care team. 

(6)The applicant did his very best to serve our country, in his opinion, at a timePTSD was not well recognized and at a time when our country was divided.  His periods of going AWOL was the only way that he, a man of little education, could deal with severe post-traumatic stress symptoms including panic attacks and rage without risking harm to himself or others and in any way to disgrace the Army that he cherishes. 

(7)It saddens him that a person who gave his life for this country had to settlefor the type discharges he received.  He is certain of his diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder and under the circumstances that the applicant faced; he made the best decision to leave the Army for the sake of the benefit of the Army and his own sanity. 

h.Two Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Statements in Support of Claim, dated3 January 2019 and 15 March 2019, requesting documents for his case at ARBA and that documents be added to his file for his case. 

15.The ARBA psychiatrist was asked to review the applicant’s case.  On 23 January2020, the psychiatrist provided a medical advisory opinion in which the psychiatristindicated that she reviewed his application, his hardcopy medical records, and hiselectronic VA medical record.  The psychiatrist stated:

a.His VA medical record indicates he had not been evaluated or treated in the VAsystem and he does not have a service connected disability rating.  

b.In accordance with the 3 September 2014 Secretary of Defense Liberal GuidanceMemorandum, there is documentation to support the existence of behavioral health condition at the time of discharge. 

c.The available records indicate that the applicant did meet medical retentionstandards in accordance with AR 40-501 (Medical Services –– Standards of Medical Fitness).  PTSD is a mitigating factor in the misconduct that led to his discharge. 

16.The medical advisory was provided to the applicant to give him the opportunity tosubmit a response and/or rebuttal.  On 4 February 2020, the applicant submitted hisresponse and states the advisory opinion mentioned that he was not service-connectedfor PTSD; however, he wanted to bring it to the psychiatrist’s attention that he was notable to file for PTSD with the VA until his discharge was upgraded to honorable.

17.The applicant states there were no mental health screenings like there are today.He went to Vietnam at the young age of 18 years old and he was placed into stressfulsituations no one could be totally prepared for.  In addition to being shot down in hishelicopter, he witnessed the effects of combat while having to transport wounded anddead Soldiers.  It had a constant effect on him throughout his life.  The decision to goAWOL was his own but he felt it was the only way to stay safe at the time.  He had todeal with the stressors of both Vietnam and his occupation in garrison, which includedwitnessing the fates of test pilots involved in accidents while flying.  His record shows heenlisted at the age of 19 years old, he was convicted by special court-martial for beingAWOL, charges were preferred against him for two specifications of being AWOL, andhe had 243 days lost due to being AWOL.  He served 2 years, 2 months, and 5 days ofhis 3 years contractual obligation.

18.Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10 is a voluntary discharge request in-lieu oftrial by court martial.  Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, anunder other than honorable conditions discharge was normally considered appropriate.

19.Presidential Proclamation 4313, issued on 16 September 1974, provided for theissuance of a clemency discharge to members of the Armed Forces who were in anunauthorized absence status and certain former Soldiers who voluntarily entered intoand completed an alternate restitution program specifically designed for former Soldierswho received a less than honorable discharge for AWOL-related incidents betweenAugust 1964 and March 1973.  The clemency discharge is a neutral discharge, neitherhonorable nor less than honorable.  It did not affect the underlying discharge and did notentitle the individual to benefits administered by the VA.

20.On 4 April 1977, DOD directed the Services to review all less than fully honorableadministrative discharges issued between 4 August 1964 and 28 March 1973.  In theabsence of compelling reasons to the contrary, this program, known as the DOD-SDRP,required that a discharge upgrade, to either honorable or general, be issued in the caseof any individual who:

.had completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia

.been wounded in action

.been awarded a military decoration other than a service medal

.had received an honorable discharge from a previous period of service, or had arecord of satisfactory military service of 24 months prior to discharge

.consideration of other factors, including possible personal problems, which mayhave contributed to the acts which led to the discharge and a record of goodcitizenship since the time of discharge would also be considered



21.Public Law 95-126, enacted in October 1978, required the Service Departments toestablish historically-consistent uniform standards for discharge reviews.Reconsideration using these uniform standards was required for all dischargespreviously upgraded under the SDRP and certain other programs were required.Individuals whose SDRP upgrades were not affirmed upon review under thesehistorically-consistent uniform standards were not entitled to VA benefits unless theyhad been entitled to such benefits before their SDRP review.

22.At the time of the applicant's discharge, PTSD was largely unrecognized by themedical community and DOD.  However, both the medical community and DOD nowhave a more thorough understanding of PTSD and its potential to serve as a causativefactor in a Soldier's misconduct when the condition is not diagnosed and treated in atimely fashion. Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely formisconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for thepossible re-characterization of their overall service even if the sexual assault or sexualharassment was unreported, or the mental health condition was not diagnosed untilyears later.

23.The Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness providesguidance that Boards are to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning fordischarge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on mentalhealth conditions, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),sexual harassment and sexual assault.  The veteran’s testimony alone, oral or written,may establish the existence of a condition or experience, that the condition orexperience existed during or was aggravated by military service, and that the conditionor experience excuses or mitigates the discharge.

24.The applicant requests an upgrade so that he may receive benefits.  The ABCMR isnot authorized to grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose ofmaking the applicant eligible for veterans' benefits.

25.The Board may recommend no relief, recommend upgrade of the characterizationof service to fully honorable, or recommend correction of the record to show theupgrade of the characterization of service under the SDRP was affirmed; however, inreaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and servicerecord in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency guidance.

BOARD DISCUSSION: 



1.The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents,evidence in the records, medical records, advisory, regulatory requirements, andpublished DoD guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests.  The Boardnoted the facts presented above.  The Board found sufficient evidence of in-servicemitigation to justify a clemency determination.  Based on a preponderance of evidence,the Board determined that the applicant’s discharge character of service should bechanged to honorable as a matter of clemency.2.After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found thatrelief is warranted.

BOARD VOTE: 

Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 

: : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 

: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 

: : : DENY APPLICATION 


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 

1.The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant arecommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department ofthe Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing the applicant’scharacter of service as honorable by reason and authority of Secretarial Authority forthe period of service ending 17 March 1972.

2.The Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individualconcerned be corrected by executing the actions described in Administrative Note(s)below.


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): 

A review of the applicant's record shows his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), for the period ending 17 March 1972, as amended by DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), 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 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized): 













•Purple Heart•National Defense Service Medal•Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze service stars•Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960)•Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar•Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Pistol Bar•Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation





REFERENCES: 

1.Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), ineffect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation ofenlisted personnel.

a.An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient tobenefits provided by law.  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.A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 

c.When a member is to be issued a discharge under other than honorableconditions, the convening authority will direct his immediate reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. 

d.A Chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service) is applicable to memberswho had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service.  The request could be submitted at any time after the charges had been preferred.  Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, an under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally considered appropriate.   
2.Presidential Proclamation 4313 (PP 4313), issued on 16 September 1974, providedfor the issuance of a clemency discharge to members of the Armed Forces who were inan unauthorized absence status and certain former Soldiers who voluntarily entered intoand completed an alternate restitution program specifically designed for former Soldiers
who received a less than honorable discharge for AWOL-related incidents between August 1964 and March 1973. 

a.The military services issued the actual clemency discharges.  The clemencydischarge is a neutral discharge, neither honorable nor less than honorable.  The clemency discharge did not affect the underlying discharge and did not entitle the individual to benefits administered by the VA.  

b.Soldiers who were AWOL entered the program by returning to military control andaccepting a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 

3.The Department of the Army Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) was basedon a memorandum from Secretary of Defense Brown and is often referred to asthe "Carter Program."  It mandated the upgrade of individual cases in which the applicantmet one of several specified criteria and when the separation was not based on aspecified compelling reason to the contrary.  The ADRB had no discretion in such casesother than to decide whether recharacterization to fully honorable as opposed to ageneral discharge was warranted in a particular case.  An individual who had received apunitive discharge was not eligible for consideration under the SDRP.  Absentees whoreturned to military control under the program were eligible for consideration after theywere processed for separation.  Individuals could have their discharges upgraded if theymet any one of the following criteria:  wounded in action; received a military decorationother than a service medal; successfully completed an assignment in Southeast Asia;completed alternate service; received an honorable discharge from a previous tour ofmilitary service; or completed alternate service or were excused from completingalternate service in accordance with PP 4313 of 16 September 1974.  Compellingreasons to the contrary to deny discharge upgrade were desertion/AWOL in or from thecombat area; discharge based on a violent act of misconduct; discharge based oncowardice or misbehavior before the enemy; or discharge based on an act ormisconduct that would be subject to criminal prosecution under civil law.

4.Public Law 95-126 provided in pertinent part for a "Relook Program."  All casesupgraded from under other than honorable conditions under the SDRP or the extensionto PP 4313 had to be relooked and affirmed or not affirmed under uniform standards.Two of the principal features of Public Law 95-126 were:  (1) the addition of 180 days ofcontinuous unauthorized absence to other reasons (e.g., conscientious objector,deserters) for discharge which act as a specific bar to eligibility for VeteransAdministration (VA) benefits.  Such absence must have been the basis for dischargeunder other than honorable conditions and is computed without regard to expirationterm of service; and (2) prospective disqualification for receipt of VA benefits for thoseoriginally qualifying as a result of upgrade by Presidential Memorandum of 19 January1977 or the SDRP, unless an eligibility determination was made under the publisheduniform standards and procedures.

5.On 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service DischargeReview Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records(BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medicalconsiderations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from formerservice members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosedwith PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcareprovider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterizationof the applicant's service.

6.On 25 August 2017 the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel andReadiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBsand BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of theirdischarges due in whole or in part to:  mental health conditions, including PTSD;traumatic brain injury (TBI); sexual assault; or sexual harassment.  Standards for reviewshould rightly consider the unique nature of these cases and afford each veteran areasonable opportunity for relief even if the sexual assault or sexual harassment wasunreported, or the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years later.  Boardsare to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when theapplication 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 toconsider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation formisconduct that led to the discharge.
7.On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readinessissued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction ofMilitary/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemencydeterminations.  Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminalsentence.  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 court-martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which maybe warranted based on equity or relief from injustice.

a.This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards andprinciples 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, 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.   

b.Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character ofservice 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//