IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 September 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170015478 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, to change Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), period ending 14 October 1980, from “Misconduct – Fraudulent Entry” to “Medical Discharge.” APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214, (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), period of service 14 October 1980 * Applicant’s self-authored statements, dated 19 May 2017, 17 August 2017 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b); however, the ABCMR conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states in a self-authored statement dated 19 May 2017, in effect: a. He wanted to make a career in the military and serve until retirement for his country. He states he would have been 38 years old at that point in his life. The applicant shares his father was in the Air Force for many years and he wanted to do the same. He states he was sent to Fort Bliss, TX. He adds he was not running or hiding from anyone. The decision was his own and he wanted the experience that it offered. b. One week prior to the start of his advanced individual training (AIT), one of his lungs collapsed while pulling charge of quarters duty (CQ) duty. He was taken to the local military hospital and received an operation. He was in the hospital for approximately a week to a week and a half. He states, when he was released back to his platoon, he was told he was being sent home to recuperate. He was home for approximately three weeks to three and a half weeks. When he returned to his unit, his commander informed him that he was placed in a “medical holdover” status. He had performed light duty for approximately two weeks, then his commander called him to his office and notified him that he was being sent home. He informed his commander that he was ready for active duty and wished to remain in the Army. His commander explained the decision was beyond his control. c. The applicant shared he felt positive he would have been the top graduate in his platoon. He never had any issues or problems while serving. He was released on 14 October 1980. At the time of his out-processing from the Army, the applicant listed his sister’s address as his forwarding mailing address, which not was the same as the mailing address listed on his DD Form 214 where he enlisted from. The applicant states that explains why he never received a copy of his DD Form 214. d. He states once he received a copy of his DD Form 214, he was expecting his reason for separation to read “Medical Discharge,” instead, it says “Misconduct- Fraudulent Entry.” The applicant disagrees with the reason for separation and do not know how his unit and the Army came to this determination. He states, there was no misconduct of any kind, and he did not falsify any documents at point of entry or at any time of his service. He strongly felt the discharge reason was incorrect. He’s requesting the discharge reason to be corrected, so that he may be able to receive the benefits that he feels he earned. Lastly, the applicant provided the name and last known location of his hospital records. 3. The applicant provides: a. A copy of his DD Form 214, period ending 14 October 1980 reflecting NA in character of service. b. A self-authored statement, dated 17 August 2017, wherein he states, in effect, he requested his medical records and had not received a response from anyone at the time of his statement. 4. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. The applicant’s initial entry medical documentation (Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination) and SF 93 (Report of Medical History), both dated 28 April 1980, shows the applicant considered himself to be in good health, had no known allergies, and was taking no medications. He was determined by a medical professional to be qualified for military enlistment in the Regular Army along with additional notations. b. He enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in a Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 28 April 1980. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 May 1980. c. DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces of the United States), dated 28 April 1980, shows in Item 24a of Military Service, the applicant placed an “X” in the box for the question asking ”Are you now or have you ever been in any regular or reserve branch of the Armed Forces or in the Army National Guard or in the Air National Guard?” The document reflects additional notations. d. Enlistment/Travel Order Number 97-9, dated 14 May 1980, ordered the applicant to the U.S. Army Reception Station, Fort Bliss, TX to attend basic combat training (BCT), effective 19 May 1980. e. Orders 89-3, dated 21 May 1980, reassigned the applicant to a one station unit training unit for BCT and to obtain his military occupational specialty (MOS) 16B (Hercules Missile Crewmember) at Fort Bliss, TX, effective 20 May 1980. f. DA Form 3180 (Personnel Screening and Evaluation Record), shows on 23 June 1980, the applicant’s commander determined the he was screened prior to attending training, was found to be unsuitable for assignment, and was under consideration for an administrative separation for cause. g. On 23 June 1980, the applicant’s commander notified him that he had been disqualified from the Personnel Reliability Program under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 50-5 (Nuclear and Chemical Weapons and Material – Nuclear Surety), under consideration for an administrative separation for cause (Fraudulent Enlistment under the provisions of AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14. The applicant was informed the disqualification was subject to mandatory review by the reviewing authority, and he would be provided the results in writing. h. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 23 June 1980. He acknowledged he fully understood the allegations and submitted a statement on his behalf for the reviewing authority. i. On 23 June 1980 in a statement, the applicant stated, in effect, he was aware when he fraudulently enlisted, it was not right. He enjoyed the Army and would’ve liked to remain a part of it. He was aware his MOS within the Air Defense Artillery career field (ADA) was taken from him, but felt he should have been able to keep his MOS because he had no police record and working with missiles and computers would have been a new experience for him. He was willing to learn whatever the Army could teach him. Lastly, he adds if he could not regain his MOS, he at least wanted to be able to say he tried. j. On 23 June 1980, the applicant’s immediate commander endorsed the recommendation to separate the applicant due to the PRP disqualification. k. On 24 June 1980, the separation authority reviewed and approved the recommended to disqualify the applicant. l. FB Form 394 (Change in Student Status Recommendation), dated 27 June 1980, shows a request to have the applicant relieved from his scheduled MOS course due to disqualification. The applicant was said to be pending the outcome of a Chapter 14 separation. The form also states, if the applicant was to be retained, he would need to be reclassified into another MOS. m. DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 9 July 1980, shows the applicant’s duty status was changed from “present for duty” to “Hospital,” effective 8 July 1980. n. DA Form 4187, dated 16 July 1980, shows the applicant’s duty status was changed from “Hospital” to “present for duty,” effective 15 July 1980. o. SF 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), shows in a partially legible entry, on 24 July 1980, the applicant was provided emergency medical treatment and care for pain on the right side of his chest at a military base near his home of record. It was noted he had received an operation for a spontaneous pneumothorax (collapse lung) approximately two weeks earlier. p. DA Form 4187, dated 6 August 1980, shows the applicant’s duty status was changed from “Hospital” to “present for duty,” effective 5 August 1980. q. A memorandum, dated 7 August 1980, from a military personnel representative at Fort Bliss, TX, to the Military Personnel Records (Mil Pers Rcds) Center commander for National Guard records, providing a second request for a copy of the applicant’s prior service records. The representative informed, the applicant revealed to his commander that he had prior National Guard Service on or about 1977 at Fort Dix, NJ, but at the time, the applicant had no documentation to prove his claim. r. SF 600 (back), shows in a partially legible entry, on 10 August 1980, the applicant was provided medical treatment and care at a military base near his home of record for pain in his right elbow since the reported trauma on 24 July 1980. s. DA Form 751 (Telephone or Verbal Conversation Record), shows a member of the applicant’s leadership notified a military representative from the local Military Personnel Office (MILPO), Training Personnel Section (TNG PERS SECT) that he had received the applicant’s verified National Guard (NG) documents on 26 August 1980. t. The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 on 16 September 1980 for steal $10.00 each from two Soldiers, by means of trickery with intent to deceive, on or about 3 September 1980. u. DA Form 268 (Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions), dated 11 September 1980, shows the applicant was to be discharged by reason of elimination under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14. v. Orders 197-59, dated 8 October 1980, released the applicant from the custody and control of the Army, effective 14 October 1980. The orders also state the time served was not creditable for promotion or longevity. w. Orders 197-67, dated 8 October 1980, reassigned the applicant for separation processing, effective 14 October 1980. x. The applicant was discharged on 14 October 1980 with no character of service. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged, under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-4b(1) for misconduct – fraudulent entry. His DD Form 214 does not show any service time completed and no lost time. Item 28, shows “Misconduct – Fraudulent Entry.” 5. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor was asked to review this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s ABCMR application and accompanying documentation, the military electronic medical record (AHLTA), the VA electronic medical record (JLV), the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), the Medical Electronic Data Care History and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) application, and the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS). The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and recommendations: a. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting an upgrade of his 17 November 1978 discharge characterized as “Not Applicable,” and in essence a referral to the Disability Evaluation System (DES). He claims that he thought he had been discharged for medical reasons and not for fraudulent enlistment. b. The Record of Proceedings outlines the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. The applicant’s DD 214 shows he entered the regular Army on 14 May 1980 and was discharged on 14 October 1980 under the provisions provided in paragraph 14-4b(1) of AR 635-200, Personnel Management – Enlisted Personnel (1 May 1980), Fraudulent Entry - Concealment of prior service. c. Because of the period of service under consideration, there are no encounters in AHLTA or documents in iPERMS. d. His pre-entrance Report of Medical History and Report of Medical Examination completed in April 1980 show the applicant was in good health and without significant medical issues. e. In a memorandum dated 23 June 1980, the applicant was notified that he had “been disqualified from the Personnel Reliability Program under the provisions of AR 50-5, for the following reason: Para 3-12b(9). AR 50-5 - Under consideration for administrative separation for cause (Fraudulent Enlistment UP Chapter 14, AR 635- 200).” He was notified that if he was retained that he would need to be reclassified in to a new MOS (military occupational specialty). f. He went to William Beaumont Army Medical Center on 9 July 1980 for a spontaneous pneumothorax. Following his hospitalization and convalescent leave, he returned to duty until 6 August 1980. g. The applicant had revealed to his commander that he has served in the National Guard in 1977 and a records request was submitted. A note is made First Sergeant received National Guard documents on the applicant. h. He received an Article 15 for two counts of larceny (fellow Soldiers) on 16 September 1980. It appears that now having options for discharging the Soldier, the command opted for fraudulent enlistment. i. There is no evidence the applicant had a medical condition which would have contributed to or would mitigate his multiple UCMJ violations; or that would have failed the medical retention standards of chapter 3, AR 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness, and been a cause for referral to the DES prior to his discharge. Given the current documentation, it is the opinion of the Agency Medical Advisor that neither an upgrade of his discharge nor a referral of the case to the DES is warranted. 6. The applicant’s service records did not show evidence the applicant had requested relief from the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). 7. By regulation (AR 635-200), fraudulent entry is the procurement of an enlistment, reenlistment, or period of active service through any deliberate material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment which, if known and considered by the Army at the time of enlistment or reenlistment, might have resulted in rejection. This includes all conditions that would have been disqualifying without a waiver. However, the enlistment of a minor with false representation as to age without proper consent will not in itself be considered as fraudulent enlistment. The following two tests must be applied in each case of suspected fraudulent enlistment or reenlistment to establish that the enlistment or reenlistment was, in fact, fraudulent: * Commanders will determine if the information is in fact disqualifying * Commanders must verify the existence and true nature of the apparently disqualifying information a. Any incident which meets the foregoing two tests may be cause for separation for fraudulent entry. b. Concealment of prior service. The establishment of the identity of Army personnel and verification of prior service in any of the U.S. Armed Forces normally requires only comparison of fingerprints and examination of records. Accordingly, commanders will not request field investigations to establish evidence of prior military service. At the time, when additional evidence (such as a statement of service or certificate of service) is required from the custodian of the records to establish prior service, an inquiry will be forwarded to the Commander, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN 46249. The request will include the name(s), social security number (SSN), and all available information concerning the alleged period of service. 8. By regulation (AR 635-5 (Personnel Separations – Separation Documents), chapter 2, in effect at the time, established standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. The purpose of the separation document is to provide the individual with documentary evidence of his or her military service. It is important that information entered on the form should be complete and accurate. Chapter 2 contained guidance for preparation of the DD Form 214. The version of the regulation in effect at the time stated for Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), this is based on regulatory or other authority and can be checked against the cross reference in AR 635- 5-1 (Separation Program Designators (SPD)). 9. AR 40-501(Medical Services – Standards of Medical Fitness), provides in pertinent part, a. Paragraph 2-9a(5), one of the causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction is related to limitation of motion where an individual will be considered unacceptable if the joint ranges of motion are less than the measurements listed. For fingers, inability to clench fist, pick up a pin or needle, and grasp an object. b. Paragraph 2-9b(5), one of the causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction relating to a limitation of motion where an individual will be considered unacceptable if the joint ranges of motion are less than the measurements listed. For hand and fingers, scars and deformities of the fingers and/or hand which impair circulation, are symptomatic, are so disfiguring as to make the individual objectionable in ordinary social relationships, or which impair normal function to such a degree as to interfere with the satisfactory performance of military duty. c. Chapter 3, provides the various medical conditions and physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military service. The medical conditions and physical defects, individually or in combination, are those that: (1) Significantly limit or interfere with the Soldier’s performance of their duties. (2) May compromise or aggravate the Soldier’s health or well-being if they were to remain in the military service. (3) May compromise the health or well-being of other Soldiers. (4) May prejudice the best interests of the Government if the individual were to remain in military service. 10. AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of a physical disability. The regulation provides that the military treatment facility (MTF) will provide a thorough and prompt evaluation when a Soldier’s condition becomes questionable in respect to physical ability to perform duty. Unit commanders will ensure that any physical defects impacting on a Soldier’s performance of duty are reflected in the Soldier’s evaluation report and refer the Soldier to the servicing MTF for medical evaluation when the Soldier is believed to be unable to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. It also states that the MTF commander having primary medical care responsibility will conduct an evaluation of the Soldier referred for evaluation. If it appears that the Soldier is not medically qualified to perform duty, the MTF commander will refer the Soldier to a medical evaluation board (MEB). The MEB will recommend referral to a physical evaluation board those Soldiers who do not meet retention standards. The applicant’s service record was void of documentation to show she was evaluated and determined to have been processed for separation due to a service connected a physical disability. 11. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined relief was not warranted. Based upon the documentary evidence showing the applicant provided false information on his enlistment documents, as well as the findings and recommendations of the medical advisor, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant a change to the applicant’s narrative reason for separation. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XXX :XX :XXX 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3 year statute of limitations if the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 14-4, regarding fraudulent entry, provides, fraudulent entry is the procurement of an enlistment, reenlistment, or period of active service through any deliberate material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment which, if known and considered by the Army at the time of enlistment or reenlistment, might have resulted in rejection. This includes all conditions that would have been disqualifying without a waiver. However, the enlistment of a minor with false representation as to age without proper consent will not in itself be considered as fraudulent enlistment. The following two tests must be applied in each case of suspected fraudulent enlistment or reenlistment to establish that the enlistment or reenlistment was, in fact, fraudulent: * Commanders will determine if the information is in fact disqualifying * Commanders must verify the existence and true nature of the apparently disqualifying information a. Paragraph 14-4b, provides any incident which meets the foregoing two tests may be cause for separation for fraudulent entry. b. Paragraph 14-4b(1) provides, concealment of prior service. The establishment of the identity of Army personnel and verification of prior service in any of the U.S. Armed Forces normally requires only comparison of fingerprints and examination of records. Accordingly, commanders will not request field investigations to establish evidence of prior military service. At the time, when additional evidence (such as a statement of service or certificate of service) is required from the custodian of the records to establish prior service, an inquiry will be forwarded to the Commander, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN 46249. The request will include the name(s), social security number (SSN), and all available information concerning the alleged period of service. 3. Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations – Separation Documents), chapter 2, in effect at the time, established standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. The purpose of the separation document is to provide the individual with documentary evidence of his or her military service. It is important that information entered on the form should be complete and accurate. Chapter 2 contained guidance for preparation of the DD Form 214. The version of the regulation in effect at the time stated for Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), this is based on regulatory or other authority and can be checked against the cross reference in AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designators (SPD)). 4. Army Regulation 40-501 (Medical Services – Standards of Medical Fitness), provides in pertinent part, a. Paragraph 2-9a(5), one of the causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction is related to limitation of motion where an individual will be considered unacceptable if the joint ranges of motion are less than the measurements listed. For fingers, inability to clench fist, pick up a pin or needle, and grasp an object. b. Paragraph 2-9b(5), one of the causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction relating to a limitation of motion where an individual will be considered unacceptable if the joint ranges of motion are less than the measurements listed. For hand and fingers, scars and deformities of the fingers and/or hand which impair circulation, are symptomatic, are so disfiguring as to make the individual objectionable in ordinary social relationships, or which impair normal function to such a degree as to interfere with the satisfactory performance of military duty. c. Chapter 3, provides the various medical conditions and physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military service. The medical conditions and physical defects, individually or in combination, are those that: (1) Significantly limit or interfere with the Soldier’s performance of their duties. (2) May compromise or aggravate the Soldier’s health or well-being if they were to remain in the military service. (3) May compromise the health or well-being of other Soldiers. (4) May prejudice the best interests of the Government if the individual were to remain in military service. 5. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of a physical disability. The regulation provides that the military treatment facility (MTF) will provide a thorough and prompt evaluation when a Soldier’s condition becomes questionable in respect to physical ability to perform duty. Unit commanders will ensure that any physical defects impacting on a Soldier’s performance of duty are reflected in the Soldier’s evaluation report and refer the Soldier to the servicing MTF for medical evaluation when the Soldier is believed to be unable to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. It also states that the MTF commander having primary medical care responsibility will conduct an evaluation of the Soldier referred for evaluation. If it appears that the Soldier is not medically qualified to perform duty, the MTF commander will refer the Soldier to a medical evaluation board (MEB). The MEB will recommend referral to a physical evaluation board those Soldiers who do not meet retention standards. 6. Title 38, USC, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a higher VA rating does not establish error or injustice in the Army rating. An Army disability rating is intended to compensate an individual for interruption of a military career after it has been determined that the individual suffers from an impairment that disqualifies him or her from further military service. The VA, which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect the individual's employability. Accordingly, it is not unusual for the two agencies of the Government, operating under different policies, to arrive at a different disability rating based on the same impairment. Furthermore, unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. 7. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency is responsible for administering the Army physical disability evaluation system and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in chapter 61 and in accordance with DOD Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 635-40. a. Soldiers are referred to the disability system when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3, as evidenced in a MEB; when they receive a permanent medical profile rating of 3 or 4 in any factor and are referred by an MOS Medical Retention Board (MMRB); and/or they are command-referred for a fitness-for-duty medical examination. b. The disability evaluation assessment process involves two distinct stages: the MEB and PEB. The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member's injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his/her ability to return to full duty based on the job specialty designation of the branch of service. A PEB is an administrative body possessing the authority to determine whether or not a service member is fit for duty. A designation of "unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. Service members who are determined to be unfit for duty due to disability either are separated from the military or are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service. Individuals who are "separated" receive a one-time severance payment, while veterans who retire based upon disability receive monthly military retired pay and have access to all other benefits afforded to military retirees. c. The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. 8. 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; TBI; 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 to 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. 9. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records may grant clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. a. 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, Boards shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official government acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. b. Changes to the narrative reason for the 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 has the upgraded service characterization. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170015478 10 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1