ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 October 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170009072 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * that his general, under honorable conditions characterization of service be upgraded to honorable * that the separation code and narrative reason for separation be changed from misconduct to Secretarial Authority APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Counsel memorandum * Exhibits “A” through “X” FACTS: 1. In order to facilitate the Board’s review, applicant’s “Personal Statement”, which appears at Exhibit F, is presented first. The applicant states he first immigrated to the United States on 17 May 2001. As a Christian Iranian, he fled Iran to escape religious persecution and came to America as a refugee. He came because he was inspired by the political, religious, and economic freedoms in American. He wanted to create a life for himself and his future family where they would feel safe and be able to freely practice Christianity. Fifteen years later, he is grateful to live in California with his wife and daughter. He is proud of his service in the Army, which left him substantially disabled. Since arriving in the United States, he has worked very hard to be an upstanding citizen who positively contributes to American society. He worked several jobs, including assembling valve regulators and as an on-call phlebotomist. In 2005, he started his own construction company. He was proud to get his business permit and provide carpentry, flooring, electric, and plumbing services to his community members. He worked hard and provided for his family. He was happy and successful. He felt thankful to be living in America and he wanted to give back. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continued, he realized his language skills as a native speaker of Farsi could be very helpful to the military. On 12 June 2007, he enlisted in the Army Reserves after talking to a friend. He knew it was the right thing to do to give back to a country that has given so much to him. He knew that with his language skills it was very likely he would be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan and he was ready to do everything he could to serve his country. He was ordered to active duty soon after he enlisted, on 14 August 2007. In February 2008, after completing English as a Second Language (ESL) training, basic training and Advanced Individual Training he deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom as a Translator Aide. Part of his duties included helping screen and process Iraqi and Iranian nationals entering Iraq. He did not translate or interpret, because his English was not good enough. He was also a turret gunner for convoys while in Iraq and would sometimes drive the Humvee as well. He performed this duty every day for about eight months with a team of three or four of his buddies. The convoys were always targets and there were times they had to open fire on attackers. On one occasion, he had to shoot and kill an Iraqi driver. It was a very tense and difficult time in his unit, but he remained hard-working, loyal, and trustworthy. He was based at Camp Victory. They would be under mortar or missile attacks approximately two time per week during his deployment. It was very stressful to have incoming fire this regularly. They watched explosions near them and wondered every night if they would be killed next. All the men in his unit were very afraid. In addition to the combat he experienced, because he was Iranian and spoke Farsi, he was constantly harassed by Iranian nationals. He estimates that more than three hundred Iranian nationals insulted him, spit on him, or threatened to kill him, because he was serving the American military. They felt he had betrayed Iran. Most days, he would lose his voice because of all the arguing he did to defend himself and his loyalty to the United States. He worked extremely hard during his deployment in these difficult conditions and his proud of his service. The stressors he experienced in service led him to develop Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He is very affected by his symptoms and receives compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He sees a VA psychiatrist and takes daily medication to help with his symptoms. The English language has been very hard for him to learn and even now he struggles with it. He had to have help with this statement. At the time of his enlistment, his English skills were at a beginner level. He failed the English entrance exam in the summer of 2007. After enlisting, he was sent to Fort Jackson to study English. He failed another English exam and finally passed the English entrance exam on his third attempt. In April 2009, he received a General Discharge (GD) for making a mistake when answering a question about his military history. He completed the form when he enlisted and his command of English was far below average. He did not understand that the form was asking about his prior association with the Iranian military. He also did not consider his association with the Iranian military to be prior military service. His time in the Iranian Army was mandatory and involuntary. He was dragged from his house at the age of nineteen or twenty and forced to work at a hospital that was run by the Iranian military during the Iran-Iraq War. Most patients were civilians. He was used for general labor and cleaning and sometimes assisted doctors and nurses with various tasks. He sometimes drove an ambulance. He did not perform any traditional military duties, was not paid a salary, and did not earn any rank. His honor and respect for the United States would never have allowed him to intentionally lie or provide false information about prior military service. He is proud of his service in the Army and believes he was a very loyal service member and hard worker. He is deeply sorry that his honest mistake caused this result and is trying to do everything he can to remedy it. He continues to try very hard to assimilate into the American culture that he loves and respects. He changed his name and continues to try to improve his English. He is currently a full-time student working towards a degree in microbiology. He studies very hard to accommodate his PTSD symptoms. He gets good grades and maintains over a 3.1 grade point average. He will soon receive his bachelor’s degree and is assisting two professors with their research. He continues to try to positively contribute to his community and American society. He has volunteered many hours with St. Jude and makes monetary and in-kind donations to homeless shelters in his area. He receives VA compensations for his PTSD, but tries to take care of his neighbors and family as best he can, despite his symptoms. Though PTSD makes it very difficult, he is trying to be a good father, husband, veteran, and citizen. Several people he knows have provided letters of support. He has so much respect for his unit, the men and women he service with, and this great country he lives in. He hopes to continue to contribute positively to his community and American society. The requested change to his DD Form 214 would allow him to move forward with honor. He deeply appreciates the Board taking the time to reflect on his loyal service and considering his request. 2. Counsel states that the character of service and narrative reason for separation in applicant’s case are unjust because the record demonstrates (1) his dedication to the U.S. military, high quality service, and significant sacrifice while supporting combat missions in Iraq; (2) that an unintentional mistake on a form led to his discharge; and (3) that he has made significant efforts to contribute to his community and family since his military service. The applicant’s military service was an expression of his deep admiration and gratitude towards the United States. Prior to his Article 15, he had a flawless record of service and sacrifice in support of combat missions. He was exposed to daily life- threatening danger and endured extreme hostility from Iranian nationals he processed at the border. As a result of his service, he suffers from PTSD as substantiated by the VA. It significantly limits his daily activities and requires him to follow a regimen of medication and mental health care. A GD and “Misconduct (Serious Offense)” designation are injustices given the quality of his service and performance under extremely difficult circumstances, the sacrifices and wounds he received in the course of his service, and the absence of any misconduct other than an unintentional mistake at the time of his enlistment that did not affect his performance or dedication to the U.S. military. At the time applicant filled out his enlistment paperwork, his English proficiency was quite low. Even after the Army ordered him to active duty, it took him three tries to pass the English entrance examination. When he filled out the SF 86, he simply did not understand that he was being asked about prior association with a foreign military service. Further, even had he understood he still may not have considered his experience to have been military service, since he was dragged from his home and forced to work in a hospital where he performed no traditional military duties, was not paid, and did not earn rank. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 107, false official statement, requires an intent to deceive and applicant had no such intent. He also did not present any defense or mitigation to counter the charge at his hearing and did not have anyone speak on his behalf. A GD and “Misconduct (Serious Offense)” designation are injustices because applicant never intended to deceive the Army when he marked “not applicable.” He made a mistake based on limited English proficiency and an unusual experience with the Iranian military. He honorably served a full tour of duty in a combat environment. The applicant has made significant efforts to contribute to his community and family after his military service. He became a United States citizen in September 2008. He married in 2011 and he and his wife had a daughter in 2014. He has continued his education and will soon receive an undergraduate degree in microbiology, in spite of the challenges presented by his PTSD symptoms. In the many years he has lived in California, he has impressed and positively impacted his neighbors and community. A GD and “Misconduct (Serious Offense)” designation are injustices because of the sustained and substantial efforts that he has made to become an exemplary citizen, make significant contributions to his community, and strive for the best for his family in spite of disabling PTSD caused by his military service. 3. The applicant and counsel provides: a. Exhibit A showing applicant’s name was legally changed on 19 March 2015. b. Exhibit B consisting of page one of a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ) (hereinafter NJP), dated 26 March 2009. It shows applicant was found guilty of having made a false official statement by indicating “not applicable” in response to a question about prior military service. c. Exhibit C consisting of Orders 112-1003, dated 22 April 2009, directing applicant’s discharge effective 29 April 2009. d. Exhibit D consisting of DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), with an effective date of separation of 29 April 2009. This DD Form 214, which was administratively reissued on 17 February 2011 at the direction of the ABCMR due to corrections unrelated to service characterization and reason for separation, will be discussed in paragraph 4 below. e. Exhibit E consisting of the cover page and page 17 of 31 of the “Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-Quip)” form pertaining to applicant. The cover page notes that pages 2-34 comprise the “Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86 Format).” Page 17 consists of “Section 16: Your Military History” and Section 17: Your Foreign Activities.” The bottom of the page includes the words “Generated on 13 June 2007.” f. Exhibit F consisting of applicant’s personal statement, which is summarized in paragraph 1 above. g. Exhibit G consisting of Immigration and Naturalization Service Form I-94 (Departure Record) showing applicant entered the United States through Chicago, Illinois on 17 May 2001, was granted refugee status and admitted into the United States indefinitely. h. Exhibit H consisting of applicant’s transcripts from Diablo Valley College, Pleasant Hill, California and Los Medanos College, Pittsburg, California. i. Exhibit I consisting of a letter of support from Sergeant (Retired) (SGT (Ret)) X X , dated 22 November 2016. He states that he has known applicant for almost nine years. He met him when he became applicant’s tenant. Applicant was a very flexible and accommodating landlord with the rent, even when he was struggling himself. SGT(Ret) X X was one of applicant’s recruiters. He was committed to serving his country and aware that linguists were first to deploy. He did not hesitate to serve. He showed tremendous loyalty and honor during his military service and outside the military as well. He is a responsible husband and a loving father to a beautiful daughter and he works hard every day to secure a better future for his family. Even though his command of the English language sometimes becomes a hurdle in communicating effectively on many levels, he continues to improve and integrate in the American society. j. Exhibit J consisting of “Orders: 722614”, dated 14 August 2007, directing applicant to report for initial active duty training (IADT) beginning on 15 August 2007. k. Exhibit K consisting of “Orders 08-060-00025”, dated 29 February 2008, mobilizing applicant for three hundred sixty-five days in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. l. Exhibit L consisting of a letter of support from SGT X X of the U.S. Army Reserve, dated 21 November 2016. He states he is pleased to provide this letter of recommendation for applicant. In 2007, he worked the border of Iraq and Iran with his unit. In 2008, applicant was ordered to work border operations with them. Applicant was an honest, friendly, intelligent, and hard-working Soldier. m. Exhibit M consisting of a VA Rating Decision, dated 14 August 2015. The decision shows applicant is one hundred percent disabled due to PTSD and also has back and knee issues rated at twenty percent and ten percent disabling respectively. n. Exhibit N consisting of a “Certificate of Naturalization” showing applicant became a citizen of the United States on 1 September 2008. o. Exhibit O consisting of a “License and Certificate of Marriage” showing applicant married on 2 June 2011. p. Exhibit P consisting of a letter of support from applicant’s wife, X X , dated 30 November 2016. She states she has known applicant since 2009. He was looking for a calm stable life. She found him to be a positive, lovely, and energetic person who knew what he wanted. After they married, she noticed he had PTSD. At first, she was scared because she did not know how she should behave with him. She could see a happy, motivated and big-hearted person behind his PTSD. As a husband he is supportive, responsible, and devoted. It is enjoyable when she sees him do whatever to make her happy. This caused her to try to learn how to behave with him and what she should do to stay calm in the face of her new life with him and daily stress. He often wakes up from nightmares, shaking and crying. Also, she sometimes wakes him up from these. Then she puts her hands on his face, touches him gently, kisses him, and tells him “nothing happened my dear, I am here” until he goes back to sleep. He is great in everything he undertakes and he does his best. Her obstetrician always admired him and called him a supportive husband because he was with her in all her doctor’s appointments during her pregnancy. He is so kind with other people and he is ready to help them whenever they ask. He responds to many donation and charity letters they receive, like St. Jude Children Research Hospital. Studying makes him so happy and hopeful. His passion in studying impresses her and motivates her to support him much more. She does not give up to love him and spend the rest of her life with him, despite his stress. She is sure he is worth it. q. Exhibit Q consisting of applicant’s daughter’s birth certificate, which shows she was born on 15 December 2014. r. Exhibit R consisting of applicant’s transcripts from San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California. s. Exhibit S consisting of a support letter jointly signed by applicant’s neighbors X and X X , dated 17 November 2016. Mister and Mrs. X state that every encounter they have had with applicant has been very pleasant and memorable. He is a unique individual with many talents and an eye for creative design. He is friendly, caring, a good listener, is always willing to lend a helping hand, likes to do things the right way, and does what is right. He is also a very attentive father. It is very refreshing to be around a person that is down to earth and is not afraid to say what is on his mind. Additionally, if there is something he is unsure of, he will ask questions to gain understanding. There is nothing negative to say about him. If he had the ability to control time, it would give him the ability to reach all of his goals and aspirations. t. Exhibit T consisting of a support letter from X X , dated 9 April 2011. He is applicant’s roommate (this letter predates applicant’s marriage) and has known him for about ten years in the United States. He is a happy, ambitious, very kind and honest person. He helps poor people and never bothers anyone. He likes music, skiing, and swimming. He does not have anything to hide, because he cannot lie. Applicant is the most honest person he has seen during this ten years. He has lived with him for about two years and applicant has always helped him and encouraged him to go to school and learn English even though he does not like school. He can always count on applicant. Applicant hates the Iranian government and is always against the mullahs. He is one of the most honest people that he knows. He has not seen him lie to anyone or talk about other people. For example, on one occasion they got together with another friend and he and the friend started talking about yet another friend behind his back. Applicant was the only one who told them they cannot judge other people and talk about them behind their backs. One time he lent applicant two hundred dollars. He gave him the money back exactly when he was supposed to even though he had forgotten that he had lent applicant the money. Applicant is just a nice guy in every way. He can trust him with all his money without fear and he can ask him to take care of his girlfriend knowing applicant would never ever touch her or take advantage. He asks that the Board forgive him, if he has not explained things clearly because English is his second language. u. Exhibit U consisting of a “Certificate of Appreciation” from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, dated February 2015, presented to applicant “In recognition of outstanding support in helping St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital keep its promises to children and families battling cancer and other deadly diseases.” v. A letter from the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), dated 4 December 2013, informing applicant that his request for an upgrade had been denied. w. Exhibit W consisting of medical records submitted by applicant’s counsel in response to the Case Management Division’s request for additional evidence regarding applicant’s PTSD. x. Exhibit X, submitted along with Exhibit W above, and consisting of the 25 August 2017 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, “Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments, Subject: Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment” (hereinafter referred to as the “Kurta Memo).” 4. A review of applicant’s service record shows: a. He enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 12 June 2007 for a period of eight years. b. He entered active duty for training on 12 June 2007, the day after he completed the computer generated SF 86 form in question and referenced in paragraph 3f above. c. After completion of his training, he was ordered to active duty on 29 February 2008 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom for a period of three hundred sixty-five days. d. On 17 February 2009, Orders A-02-905055, extended him on active duty for an additional one hundred seventy-nine days for the purpose of UCMJ processing. e. On 26 March 2009, while serving in Iraq, he received NJP for having made a false official statement regarding his prior military service on an SF 86 at or near the Sacramento Military Entrance Processing Station, Sacramento, California on or about 12 June 2007 (two days prior to his entry on active duty). His punishment included reduction from specialist/E-4 to private/E-2, a two month forfeiture, restriction and extra duty for forty-five days, and an oral reprimand. Block 10 (Allied Documents and/or Comments) of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ) references two DA Form 3881s (Rights Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificate) and two DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement) from applicant dated 5 and 12 November 2008. It also references two other DA Forms 2823, dated 5 July 2008, from two other individuals. None of these statements are available. Block 10 does not reference any investigation. There is no evidence of any activity conducted on the matter with an eye toward prosecution subsequent to the taking of applicant’s two sworn statements. f. On 30 March 2009, the applicant’s company commander initiated separation, under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations—Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), Chapter 14-12c based on his commission of a serious offense as captured in his NJP. She opted to use notification procedures, thus limiting the characterization of service applicant could receive to no worse than general, under honorable conditions. g. On 1 April 2009, the applicant in consultation with counsel, acknowledged the following: * that he had received notice of the contemplated separation action * that he elected to seek advice from military counsel * that he had the right to submit a statement on his own behalf and wished to do so * that he understood he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life, if a character of service that is less than honorable was issued to him * that he had the right to request a separation board, if he had six or more years of total active and reserve military service * that he would not be eligible to enlist for a period of two years In the 1 April 2009 statement submitted by the applicant on his own behalf, the applicant asks for an honorable discharge. He states he did not intend to deceive anyone when he completed the SF 86. His English skills were not very good and he did not take the time to get clarification on what was being asked of him. He has been a United States citizen since September 2008 and joined the Army in June 2007. He decided to join the Army because it is a respectable career, helped him expand his education, and contribute to the country that has allowed him to live freely. He feels he deserves an honorable discharge, because he is an honorable man. His mistake was a language barrier, not an act of deceit. He has never been in trouble before and has always given his best efforts. By not taking the time to get help and ask for clarification, he caused himself and the Army an enormous heartache and for that he is sorry. His military career has ended before it really began and he cannot tell you how much that hurts him. h. On 7 April 2009, consistent with the recommendations of the chain of command, the separation authority directed the applicant be separated with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. i. On 29 April 2009, the applicant was discharged in accordance with AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, in effect at the time. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows in: * item 12a (Date Entered Active Duty this Period), year 2009, month 03, day 01 * item 12c (Net Active Service this Period), 0 years, 1 month, 29 days * item 12d (Total Prior Active Service), 1 year, 6 months, 17 days * item 12f (Foreign Service), 1 year, 1 month, 15 days * item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges), National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Armed Forces Reserve Medal with M Device * item 18 (Remarks), includes the notations “service in Iraq 20080229- 20090413”; “individual completed period for which ordered to active duty for purpose of post service benefits and entitlements”; “ordered to active duty in accordance with 10 USC, authority: RCM 202(c), AR 27-10, chapter 21, AR 135-200 (7-4)”; “purpose: UCMJ processing”, ordered to active duty from USAR unit . . . in accordance with 10 USC 12302 support of Iraqi Freedom 2080229-20090228” * item 24 (Character of Service), under honorable conditions (general) * item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), misconduct, (serious offense) j. On 20 October 2010, the ABCMR granted partial relief to the applicant in case number AR20100010308. The relief requested was not a discharge upgrade, but rather a request for correction primarily to the information contained in item 12 (Record of Service) of the 29 April 2009 DD Form 214 cited above. The applicant sought, in essence, to have the entirety of his active duty service captured on one DD Form 214. The Board voided his DD Form 214 for the period ending 14 August 2007 to 29 February 2008 (which covered his periods of IADT) and changed his 29 April 2009 DD Form 214 as follows: * item 12a (Date Entered Active Duty this Period), year 2007, month 08, day 14 * item 12c (Net Active Service this Period0, 1 year, 8 months and 16 days * item 12d (Total Prior Active Service), 0 years, 0 months and 0 days k. The applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge on 26 April 2013. On 4 December 2013, the ADRB determined the applicant’s discharge was both proper and equitable and denied his request. l. The Army Review Boards Agency’s Clinical Psychiatrist was asked to provide an advisory opinion in this case. On 16 October 2017, after a thorough review of all available documentation including that provided by applicant, she opined “Unfortunately, even when taking the [“Kurta Memo”] into consideration, there is no nexus between PTSD and making a false official statement. As such, PTSD is not considered mitigating for this offense.” She closed her advisory opinion, “However, after reviewing the applicant’s military and medical documentation, [she] finds applicant’s contention that he did not understand English well at the time of his enlistment into the Army to be credible. After reviewing his [Report of Medical History], it is clear that the applicant's command of the English language twenty months after entering the Army was marginal as evidenced by his written statements. One can only imagine how much worse his command of the English language was at the time of his entry into the Army. [She] requests that the ABCMR give extra consideration to this fact when making their decision regarding applicant’s petition.” m. On 21 November 2017, applicant’s counsel responded to the Advisory Opinion, stating that it does not properly apply the “Kurta Memo.” The “Kurta Memo” directs military boards to give liberal consideration to PTSD that may excuse or mitigate, and otherwise outweigh the circumstances of discharge. She states applicant’s honorable combat service, which resulted in PTSD, fully mitigates and outweighs the discharge allegation, even if it does not provide direct causation to excuse the allegedly false statement. Conduct may serve as mitigation when it post-dates earlier, punishable conduct. 5. By regulation (AR 635-200), Soldiers are subject to discharge for the commission of a serious offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense. The command may use notification procedures when the Soldier does not have six or more years of military service and a characterization of no worse than general, under honorable conditions is contemplated or approved. Secretarial plenary authority may be used when no other provision of this regulation applies. 6. UCMJ, Article 107—False official statements, states any person, who with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. It requires both an intent to deceive and actual knowledge that the statement is false. 7. By regulation (AR 27-10), USAR Soldiers will be subject to the UCMJ, whenever they are in a Title 10 status. 8. 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 reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found relief was warranted. One outcome to deny all based upon insufficient evidence to show an error or injustice which would warrant changing the applicant’s military record. However, based upon the type of misconduct leading to the applicant’s separation, the documentary evidence provided by the applicant and found within his military service record, to include the character evidence from co-workers, friends and family, the majority voted to grant an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable, change the separation code to JFF and change the narrative reason for separation to secretarial authority. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 X : X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : X : 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 reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 showing: * characterization of service as “Honorable” * narrative reason for separation as “Secretarial Authority” * separation code as “JFF” 12/2/2019 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 (Personnel Separations—Active Duty Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, set forth the basic policy for the separation of enlisted personnel. It applies to all enlisted Soldiers serving on active duty in the Active Army, including United States Army Reserve Soldiers serving on extended active duty. Chapter 14 establishes policies and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and absence without leave. Soldiers are subject to action under Chapter 14-12c for commission of a serious military or civil offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate under this chapter. However, no Soldier will be discharged per this regulation under other than honorable conditions unless afforded the right to present his/her case to an administrative discharge board. 2. AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, sets forth the basic policy for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-7a states 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. Only the honorable characterization may be awarded a Soldier upon completion of his/her period of enlistment or period for which called or ordered to active duty. Paragraph 5-3 states Secretarial plenary authority is the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. It is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the best interest of the Army. 3. AR 27-10 (Legal Services—Military Justice), in effect at the time, provides policy and procedure pertaining to the administration of military justice within the Army. Paragraph 21-2a states United States Army Reserve (USAR) Soldiers will be subject to the UCMJ whenever they are in a title 10, United States Code, duty status. Examples of such duty status are active duty (AD), active duty for training (ADT), annual training (AT), and inactive duty training (IDT). USAR Soldiers are subject to the UCMJ from the date scheduled to report to AD, ADT, AT, or IDT until the date the Soldier is released from that status. Paragraph 21-4 states Reserve component Soldiers serving on AD, ADT, or AT in a title 10 duty status may be extended on AD involuntarily, so long as action with a view toward prosecution is taken before the expiration of the AD, ADT, or AT period. 4. Manual for Courts-Martial (2008), Part IV Punitive Articles, Article 107—False official statements, states any person subject to this chapter who, with the intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. With respect to intent to deceive, the false representation must be made with the intent to deceive. It is not necessary that the false statement be material to the issue inquiry. If, however, the falsity is in respect to a material matter, it may be considered as some evidence of the intent to deceive, while immateriality may tend to show an absence of this intent. With respect to knowledge that the document or statement was false, the false representation must be one which the accused actually knew was false. Actual knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence. An honest, although erroneous, belief that a statement made is true, is a defense. 5. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole, or in part, to: mental health conditions, including PTSD; traumatic brain injury; sexual assault; sexual harassment. Boards were directed 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 that misconduct which led to the discharge. 6. 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.