ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 October 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170003406 APPLICANT REQUESTS: his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) characterization of service be upgraded to an honorable APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * Two DD Forms 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) * Counsel submissions consisting of Enclosures 1 through 6, which accompanied counsel’s memorandum dated 6 February 2017 * Counsel submissions consisting of Enclosures 7 through 11, which accompanied counsel’s memorandum dated 8 August 2017 FACTS: 1. The applicant states he is requesting reconsideration of the Army Discharge Review Board’s (ADRB) denial of his request for an upgrade. His discharge should be upgraded because he feels the charges against him were untrue. He later found out there were two investigations held and in the first investigation his name was not mentioned at all. In the following investigation his name was mentioned. Conveniently, the first investigation was lost even though it was supposed to be held for at least five years. The Army approved his chapter packet two days prior to the deadline set by the military judge to provide the missing investigation. He had submitted the Chapter 10 packet prior to this information coming to light and was unable to have his chapter request withdrawn. He only submitted the Chapter 10 packet in order to protect his civilian career as a State corrections officer. He was hoping to put an end to this arduous year that he had following the incident. He did not feel that the Army afforded him a lot of options due to the current mindset of the military. He is currently being removed from his career and fighting to get that back. He is now fighting all that went wrong with this decision that he made. He was sent to another country and put on a work detail with lower enlisted Soldiers to do area beautification, cleaning trash from the sides of the roads, then clean up all the trashcans around the base in Kuwait. He was told this was not a punishment. To a person with sixteen years in the military and number two on the promotion list for First Sergeant, he truly considered this punishment. He was all alone feeling like a leper. Though it was stated to him many times that it was not punishment, he felt he was never given a voice or people to understand what he was going through. This all happened in a crowded room with two hundred plus people and no one saw anything or tried to get his First Sergeant who was there. He just found it all very strange, then to do an investigation the very next day and not be mentioned but then a few days later to have his name all over the unit was very strange to him. Then get removed from his platoon to be sent to another country, then after that go to another state to be on another detail in which he had to stay in his physical training uniform so nobody would ask him questions or wonder why an E-7 was working at the gym. He believes this was grossly mishandled by his National Guard unit and the Army. He had sixteen years of meritorious service before this one incident and after this incident was the same Soldier as always. He truly believes he could have been retrained or moved to a different unit. He was still a valuable asset to both the National Guard and the Army. To him this was just overkill. 2. Counsel states: a. The decision to charge applicant was based on a false statement provided by Specialist (SPC) X and therefore applicant’s discharge was based on court-martial charges that were preferred due to a false witness statement. Accordingly, relief is warranted. b. In a State of New Jersey administrative hearing an administrative law judge (ALJ), determined that the testimony of the alleged victim, Ms. J , was not credible and that no offense occurred. This proceeding was the only proceeding at which testimony was taken. c. A Mr. X also testified at the hearing. He testified that he was standing behind applicant and Ms. X . At one point, he saw applicant’s arm around her shoulder, but nothing more. He testified that he told applicant that it was not appropriate to have his arm around her shoulder, but that there was no more inappropriate touching. He also testified that Ms. X did not complain about being touched inappropriately, did not say anything to him, and did not seem to be upset or under any stress at the time. d. The applicant also testified. e. Contrary to the Army Discharge Review Board’s case recitation, applicant’s chain of command, specifically First Sergeant (1SG) X , did provide a character reference letter. f. The applicant’s court-martial case was dismissed due to the Government’s negligence in losing critical evidence. 3. Counsel submits: a. Enclosure 1, consisting of a Memorandum for Record (MFR), dated 3 February 2017, composed by applicant’s Trial Defense Service (TDS) detailed counsel, Captain (CPT) X and a transcript of an interview conducted in the course of his representation of applicant. In his MFR, CPT X certifies the accuracy and completeness of the transcript. He recounts that on 23 September 2015, he interviewed SGT X . In his opinion SGT X was candid, frank, and unbiased. The conversation was surprising to CPT X , because, contrary to the statement he provided to the Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigator, SGT X no longer remembered seeing applicant touch the alleged victim and stated he would have confronted applicant had he seen anything inappropriate. He stated he had never seen applicant be disrespectful towards women and that applicant was very professional. Again, contrary to his statement to CID, SGT X told him that applicant was tipsy, but not drunk. Captain X concludes with his opinion that the primary reason the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of court-martial was approved was because the Government lost statements taken in connection with an investigation into an allegation of disrespect towards an Air Force officer which occurred the same day as the alleged incident involving Ms. X (also known as (aka) SPC X ). None of those statements mentioned the applicant acting inappropriately. He further opines that the judge’s only remedy would have been to abate the court-martial proceedings. b. Enclosure 2, consisting of the first page of SGT Gu ’s “Sworn Statement” to CID, dated 15 December 2014, and which contrasts with the interview described in the above MFR and transcript. c. Enclosure 3, sworn testimony from Ms. X /SPC X taken in an administrative hearing. (Analyst note: Applicant filed suit against the State of New Jersey challenging his termination as a corrections officer, based in part upon the incident involving Ms. X___/SPC JX___.) Direct and re-direct examination of Ms. X___/SPC X was conducted by a Deputy Attorney General on behalf of the State as she was a witness for the State. Cross examination was conducted by applicant’s attorney. (1) On direct examination, she testified, in summary, that applicant was behind her in line for dinner. She was wearing a hoodie and jeans. Her hoodie had one pocket. Applicant reached from behind and put his hands in the pocket and started feeling her stomach and breast. He also put his hands in the two back pockets of her jeans. She did not tell him to stop, because she was shocked it was happening in front of everybody. When she got her food she went to a table and he sat down beside her and had his hand on her inner thigh. She did not tell him to stop. She later left the table when another Soldier got up to leave. During the bus ride back, he sat near her. She tried to pretend she was asleep and he kept nudging her with his foot. She finally acknowledged him and he mouthed “Do you want to” twice and she said “no.” Then he asked “Do you want me to stop” and she said “yes” and he stopped. The next day applicant apologized to her and told her to report it, if she needed to. She realized applicant was intoxicated when they were at the table. (2) On cross examination, she testified, in summary, that she had one or two drinks and that applicant’s groping of her in the food line was intermittent. She did not tell him to stop. She did not just get out of line. She thought other people saw what applicant was doing. She did not tell applicant to stop when he was touching her thigh at the dinner table, which he did off and on. Nothing prevented her from getting up from the table and walking away. Before she got on the bus, she could have told 1SG X what was going on with applicant, but did not. Applicant was intoxicated and could not fill a glass of water without spilling it on the table. (3) On re-direct examination, she testified, in summary, that she consented to applicant receiving a Chapter 10 discharge and that she knew its consequences. His behavior towards her was definitely unwanted. (Ms. X /SPC X ’s sworn testimony appears in its entirety in transcript pages 113 through 186.) d. Enclosure 4, sworn testimony from Mr. X (aka SPC X ). Mr. X___/SPC X _ was called on behalf of applicant. Direct and re-direct examination of Mr. X___/SPC X___ as conducted by applicant’s attorney. Cross examination was conducted by the Deputy Attorney General. (1) On direct examination, he testified, in summary, that he was waiting in line immediately behind applicant and Ms. X___/SPC X___. He saw them laughing and talking and applicant put his arm around Ms. X___/SPC J . He did not see applicant touch her in any other way. He told applicant he needed to calm down, because it was not professional for a sergeant first class to have his arm around a specialist. He did not see applicant grope Ms. X___/SPC X___ in any way. Ms. X___/SPC X___ did not complain or seem upset and did not leave the line. In terms of intoxication level, applicant was more than buzzed. (2) On cross examination, he testified, in summary, that when he told applicant to calm down he responded “Relax man. I’m married.” He thought applicant was drunk, because he was acting goofy. (3) On re-direct examination, he testified, in summary, that he did not see applicant’s arm being around Ms. X___/SPC X___ as sexual, but rather inappropriate as a leader. The military has different standards of conduct from the civilian world and there are things a person can do as a civilian that a person cannot do as a Soldier. (Mr. X___/SPC X___’s sworn testimony appears in its entirety in transcript pages 193 through 214.) e. Enclosure 5, sworn testimony from applicant on his own behalf. Direct examination was conducted by applicant’s counsel. Cross examination was conducted by the Deputy Attorney General. (1) On direct examination, he testified, in relevant summary, that he submitted a Chapter 10 request and agreed to one of the lesser included offenses so he could be administratively discharged from the Army without further consequences. He was agreeing to the commission of the drunk and disorderly offense. Based upon what he knew about what happened, he thought there were sufficient facts from which he could have been found guilty of being drunk and disorderly. He was aware there was a three drink maximum and he did not adhere to it. He did not grope Ms. X___/SPC X . He did not touch her breast. He did touch her stomach. He guesses he gets overly friendly or flirtatious when he has a few drinks. He was just trying to show a lighter side of himself, so he had his arm around Ms. X___/SPC X___. They were talking and getting along. He was intoxicated at the time and should not have been. He agrees he touched her, but not that he groped her. Mister X___/SPC X___ was right that he should not have touched her, because he had a direct role over top of her. He did not sexually assault Ms. X /SPC X___ . She did not object to anything. When he sat down at the table, he was kind of out of it by that point, because he took a muscle relaxer. He remembers pouring water and people laughing because he spilled the water. He continued his conversation with Ms. X___/SPC X___. He touched her at the dinner table like when you lean over to talk to people. He put his hand on her like between her knee and her upper thigh right on the J meaty part. He does not remember caressing her thigh. He just remembers talking to her off and on. He thinks every time he leaned in to talk to her he touched her for balance so he would not fall into her lap. He does not remember Ms. X___/SPC X___ objecting while she was sitting there. After dinner, he went outside by the busses and wrestled with a Soldier. On the bus, Ms. X___/SPC X___ was sitting diagonally from him. He put his feet in the aisle. He would nudge her foot and that is when she made a face at him and he asked her if he should stop and she said yes. Then he turned around. (2) On cross examination, he testified, in relevant summary, that he apologized to Ms. X___/SPC X___ the following day for being drunk not for touching her. She at no time consented to him touching her and he agrees that looking back now, touching her was inappropriate. (3) On re-direct examination, he testified, in relevant summary, that he just apologized to Ms. X___/SPC X___ just for the day. Just that she was upset and he did not know why, so he apologized. He did not know at the time he apologized that she was claiming he had sexually assaulted her. (Applicant’s sworn testimony appears in its entirety in transcript pages 215-301 (direct examination), pages 5 through 74 (cross examination), pages 91 through 97 (re-direct), and 98 through 100 (re-cross). f. Enclosure 6, consisting of a letter of recommendation from 1SG K , dated 19 September 2016. He states that he served with applicant for over ten years and always knew him to be a trustworthy Soldier and leader. He is professional, enthusiastic, meticulous and attentive to detail and always placed his Soldiers’ needs before his own. He was respected by both his peers and Soldiers. He had the Battalion Sergeant Major’s full confidence and was being groomed to take over as first sergeant. First Sergeant X___ states that what happened during the deployment seemed completely out of character for applicant and is not indicative of the man he knows. g. Enclosure 7, consisting of a “Motion to Compel Discovery”, dated 1 October 2015, with documentary evidence in support, in which the defense sought, among other things, discovery of an Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 investigation and related statements taken by 1SG X___ regarding an alleged incident in which a Soldier was disrespectful to Air Force personnel as members of the applicant and Ms. X___/SPC X___’s unit were leaving the event at which he allegedly assaulted her. h. Enclosure 8, consisting of a “Government Response to Defense Motion to Compel Production of Witnesses”, dated 14 October 2015, dealing with a series of witness production exchanges between the Government and defense. i. Enclosure 9, consisting of pages 1 and 7 of a summarized record of trial. Page 7 reflects that on 16 October 2015, the military judge (MJ) ordered the Government to produce the requested AR 15-6 investigation and sworn statements no later than 1 November 2015. The MJ also scheduled the trial during the week of December 3rd, 2015. The summarized transcript concludes with an entry reflecting that applicant’s Chapter 10 request was approved on 2 November 2015. j. Enclosure 10, consisting of a Government “Motion for Reconsideration”, dated 1 November 2015, it which it asked the Court to reconsider its ruling compelling production of the complete AR 15-6. It explained its efforts to locate the complete AR 15-6 investigation. k. Enclosure 11, consisting of a MFR from CPT X___, applicant’s TDS counsel, dated 2 February 2016. Among other things, CPT X___ essentially stated that the Government was ordered to produce the AR 15-6 or provide evidence of its loss. The Government realized its case was about to fall apart completely and had the Convening Authority approve the Chapter 10. He also states that in a request for discharge, a Soldier must acknowledge guilt of an offense charged or a lesser included offense. The offense to which applicant believed he may have been guilty was the lesser included offense to drunk and disorderly which is disorderly conduct, because he wrestled with one of his Soldiers at the event. The allegation of being drunk is contested. Applicant has not admitted or acknowledged guilt to any of the other alleged misconduct. 4. To further inform the Board, the analyst provides the following publically available information regarding applicant’s administrative hearing: a. The applicant was removed from his employment as a corrections officer for the State of New Jersey effective 29 March 2016, on charges of conduct unbecoming a public employee, other sufficient cause, and violations of departmental policies and procedures. The appointing authority asserted that he failed to report his involvement with law enforcement while serving an overseas tour as a Soldier, that he was untruthful during the appointing authority’s investigation, and that the underlying conduct for which he was charged constituted conduct unbecoming a public employee. b. He appealed his termination and the matter was submitted to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing. On 12 August 2016, the ALJ who conducted the hearing, at which the sworn testimony provided by applicant’s counsel referenced in paragraphs 3c, d, and e, above, was given, issued her ruling. Among the relevant findings, the ALJ found: * that all witnesses other than Ms. X___/SPC X___, to include applicant, were sincere and honest in their testimony * that applicant was charged with inappropriate touching, sexual contact, assault, drunkenness and disorderly conduct, but it had not been demonstrated that the charges were criminal * that on 9 December 2014, applicant was intoxicated and acted inappropriately in his leadership position Among the ALJ’s relevant conclusions were the following: * that the State had not met its burden of proving that applicant’s failure to report the 2014 incident violated any of its rules and had not proven that “admitting to one of the lesser included charges” was anything more than applicant admitting to drunkenness in the military context, which they failed to establish was tantamount to criminal charges * with respect to conduct unbecoming a public employee, applicant conceded that he was intoxicated and acted inappropriately and by his own admission there was flirting and unwanted touching, and he was a superior * his actions did constitute conduct unbecoming of an employee Finally, the ALJ ordered that applicant’s removal as a State corrections officer be modified to a one hundred and twenty day suspension. c. The State appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. On 16 March 2018, that Court reversed the ALJ’s decision and reinstated the original sanction of removal. It found: * that the evidence did not support the ALJ’s determination that applicant’s conduct was not criminal and for the ALJ to have found differently was erroneous * that Ms. X___/SPC X___’s testimony at the administrative hearing was consistent with statements she made during the CID investigation, while applicant had been untruthful at times and described variations of events * that the ALJ’s finding that Ms. X___/SPC X___ was not credible was so divergent from the proofs that it was necessary that she provide reasons for finding Ms. X___/SPC X___ incredible * without an explanation, and without support by substantial credible evidence in the record, the Court accorded no deference to that credibility finding * that the ALJ improperly concluded that applicant’s discharge was for intoxication and disorderly behavior and not for his sexual misconduct against Ms. X___/SPC X___ 5. A review of applicant’s service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 December 1998 and the Army National Guard of the United States and New Jersey Army National Guard on 11 February 2002. b. On 27 February 2015, charges were preferred against him for maltreatment of a subordinate, assault, abusive sexual contact by touching the stomach, breasts, buttocks, and thigh of Ms. X___/SPC X___without her consent, and drunk and disorderly conduct. c. On 15 October 2015, in consultation with CPT X , he submitted a “Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service.” He acknowledged: * his request was voluntary * the charges against him authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge * he understood the elements of the offenses * based on the evidence presented he agreed he was guilty of one of the lesser included offenses contained therein which also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge * he had been afforded the right to consult with counsel and been fully advised regarding his rights, the elements of the offenses, the lesser included offenses, the facts which must be established beyond a reason doubt, possible defenses, and the maximum permissible punishment * although counsel provided legal advice, the decision was his own * he understood he may be issued a UOTHC * he understood the possible effects of a UOTHC to include the loss of many or all Army benefits, ineligibility for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, possible deprivation of veterans benefits under both Federal and State law, and that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life * if he received a UOTHC he would be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade * he understood that once his request for discharge was submitted, it could only be withdrawn with the consent of the general court-martial convening authority unless a trial resulted in acquittal or the sentence did not include a punitive discharge d. Along with his “Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service”, he elected to submit a statement on his own behalf. The statement, through CPT X requested that the discharge in lieu of court-martial be approved, because that would be the appropriate result, the alleged victim supported the discharge in lieu of court-martial, and the Government would be spared immense time and cost. He also noted that the misconduct was relatively minor, that the Government’s case was unlikely to result in convictions or a punitive discharge, and that approving the Chapter 10 was a just and fair result for all parties. e. On 20 October 2015, counsel for Ms. X /then Sergeant X submitted a memorandum indicating she supported applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of court- martial. f. On 2 November 2015, consistent with the chain of command recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant’s “Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service” and directed he be discharged with a characterization of service of UOTHC and reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. g. He was discharged on 6 November 2015, in accordance with 3 September 1975, in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Separations), in effect at the time and currently. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows in: * item 12c (Net Active Service This Period, 1 year, 4 months, 21 days * item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges), Iraq Campaign Medal with two Campaign Stars, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Army Commendation Medal (3rd Award), Army Achievement Medal (2nd Award), Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on (cont in Block 18) * item 18 (Remarks), includes the note cont from block 13, Terrorism Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal with Campaign Star, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon (3rd Award), Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Army Reserve Component Overseas Training Ribbon, Armed Forces Reserve Medal with M Device, Multi-National Force and Observers Medal, Expert Infantryman Badge, Parachutist Badge, Ranger Tab * item 24 (Character of Service), under other than honorable conditions * item 25 (Separation Authority), AR 635-200, Chap 10 * item 28 (Narrative Reason), in lieu of trial by court-martial 6. In a personal appearance hearing, the ADRB denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge finding it both proper and equitable. 7. On 21 June 2019, applicant’s counsel responded to a memorandum sent by the Case Management Division which miscast redacted portions of the CID investigation provided to applicant as an advisory opinion. Acknowledging that his reconsideration request to the ADRB had been converted to an appeal to this Board, he reiterated the list of documents provided for the Board’s consideration all of which have been provided to the Board. 8. By regulation (AR 635-200), an individual facing court-martial for offenses the punishment for which included a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after charges were preferred. Such request could only be withdrawn without the permission of the convening authority in the event a trial resulted in an acquittal or a sentence that did not include a punitive discharge. 9. The Board should consider the applicant’s petition and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. BOARD DISCUSSION: After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined relief is not warranted. The applicant’s and his counsel’s contentions, his record of service, the nature of the misconduct, supporting documents and evidence in the records were carefully considered. The Board applied Department of Defense standards for consideration of discharge upgrade requests to the complete evidentiary record and did not find any evidence of error, injustice, or inequity. The Board did not find in-service mitigation for the misconduct and the applicant did not provide character witness statements or evidence of post-service achievements for the Board to consider in support of clemency. Based upon his voluntary request for discharge in lieu of court- martial, the Board determined he admitted guilt to a criminal offense in which his command preferred charges that could have resulted with a BCD. Based upon a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the applicant's discharge characterization was warranted as a result of the misconduct. 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. 1/6/2020 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 (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), in effect at the time, set forth the basic policy for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 permits a Soldier 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. Per paragraph 10-2 (Personal Decision): a. Commanders will ensure that a Soldier is not coerced into submitting a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The Soldier will be given a reasonable time (not less than 72 hours) to consult with consulting counsel and to consider the wisdom of submitting such a request for discharge. b. Consulting counsel will advise the Soldier concerning— 1. elements of the offense(s) charged 2. burden of proof 3. possible defenses 4. possible punishments 5. provisions of this chapter 6. requirements for volunteerism 7. type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter 8. rights regarding the withdrawal of the Soldier’s request 9. loss of veterans’ benefits 10. prejudice in civilian life based upon the characterization of discharge c. After receiving counseling, the Soldier may elect to submit a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The Soldier will sign a written request, certifying that he/she— 1. has been counseled 2. understands his/her rights 3. may receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions 4. understands the adverse nature of such a discharge and the possible consequences d. The Soldier must also be advised that pursuant to a delegation of authority, a request for discharge in lieu of court-martial may be approved by the commander exercising special court-martial convening authority, but the authority to disapprove a request may not be delegated. e. The Soldiers written request will also include an acknowledgement that he/she understands the elements of the offense(s) charged and is guilty of the charge(s) or of a lesser included offense(s) therein contained which also authorizes the imposition of a punitive discharge. f. The consulting counsel will sign as a witness, indicating that he/she is a commissioned officer of The Judge Advocate General’s Corps, unless the request is signed by a civilian counsel representing the Soldier. Per paragraph 10-5 (Withdrawal of request for discharge), unless the trial results in an acquittal or the sentence does not include a punitive discharge, even though one could have been adjudged by the court, a request for discharge submitted per this chapter may be withdrawn only with the consent of the commander exercising general court-martial jurisdiction. 2. AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, sets forth the basic policy for the separation of enlisted personnel. Per paragraph 3-7 (Types of administrative discharges/character of service): a. An honorable discharge is a separation with honor. 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. 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. 3. 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 court- martial; 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//