ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 7 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170014191 APPLICANT REQUESTS: request reconsideration of her previous request for an upgrade of her general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) to fully honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Letter from Secretary of Defense (2014) FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20070001979 on 6 August 2007. 2. The applicant states she’s requesting an upgrade due to a diagnosis of post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) per the letter of memorandum from the Secretary of Defense. 3. The applicant was counseled on several occasions from March 1989 through September 1990 for various infractions. 4. On 22 May 1989, the applicant was administered non-judicial punishment for disobeying a lawful order. The punishment imposed included forfieture of $150.00 ($100.00 to be suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 17 November 1989) and to perform 14 days extra duty (7 days to be suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 17 November 1989). 5. On 24 May 1989, the applicant appealed the imposed punishment. The appeal was denied on 13 July 1989. 6. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 September 1990, shows the applicant’s behavoir was found to be normal. She was fully alert and oriented. Her mood or affect was unremarkable, her thinking process was clear and her thougth process was normal. The evaluating psychiatrist found her to be mentally responsible and considered her to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in separation proceedings. The applicant was clearded for separation. 7. On 26 September 1990, the applicant’s acting commander initiated action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 for serious acts of misconduct. The reasons for his proposed action was documented unsatisfactory performance. It was recommended she receive a GD. The applicant acknowledged recept of notification on the same date. 8. On 1 October 1990, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged her commander’s notification. She indicated she understood that if she was issued a GD she might expext to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. She elected to submit a statement in her own behalf; however, the statement is not available for review. 9. On 2 October 1990, an authorized official approved the applicant’s release from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, and directed the issuance of a GD Certificate. She was to be transferred to the Indiviual Ready Reserve. 10. On 9 October 1990, the applicant was relesed from active duty in accordance with the authorized officail’s direction. She completed 3 years, 7 months, and 1 day of totoal active service and was transferred to the United States Army Reserve Control Goup (Reinforcement). 11. On 9 March 1993, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her GD. 12. On 8 December 2017, the ABCMR obtained an advisory opinion from a medical advisor with Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), who states, a review of the available documentation found insufficient evidence of a medical disability or condition which would support a change to the character or reason for the discharge in this case. Based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant did not have mitigating medical or behavioral health condition(s) for the offenses which led to her separation from the Army. A copy of the complete medical advisory was provided to the Board for their review and consideration. 13. On 12 December 2017, the applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion for comment or rebuttal. She did not respond. 14. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 establishes policy and provided procedures and guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel for separation due to unsatisfactory performance. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions. 15. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, her statements, and the medical advisory, in light of the published Department of Defense guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, the medical advisory opinion and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board discussed the applicant’s statement regarding PTSD, the nature of her misconduct, the conclusion of the advising official regarding mitigation and the application of liberal consideration. The Board determined that no error or injustice had occurred and that the character of service was appropriate for the misconduct. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted.? 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. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): Not Applicable ? REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 13 of this regulation provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions. b. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an HD 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. 2. 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 (TBI); sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Boards are 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 misconduct that led to the discharge. 3. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and 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 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. 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170014191 2 1