ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 April 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170015510 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. 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) * Medical records * Personal Statement * Letter to Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) * A map 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 AR20070000274 on 19 July 2007 and AR20080000892 on 17 April 2008. 2. The applicant states: a. He was not given treatment for the residuals of combat due to traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic-stress disorder (PTSD). The onset of his PTSD occurred in combat. He was a mess after he return to Fort Bragg. He did not receive any counseling or readjustment back to garrison life. In 1984, he spiral out of control. He lost his family due to divorce. He realizes he should not have gone absent with leave (AWOL). His discharge should be upgraded due to the lack of treatment for PTSD and TBI directly related to combat in Grenada. His unit was hit with fire and Captain R was killed in action (KIA). He needs medical and mental health care through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). b. He cannot not have access to healthcare from VA without going into the psychological ward to get treated. He receives treatment for his PTSD through the VA; however, he cannot get a picture identification card from VA. He is rated at zero percent for 5 conditions. He has suffered tremendously for 33 years due to PTSD. He’s enclosing his autobiography completed 1992, when he filed for service-connected PTSD. It is a detailed timeline of the events which led to his PTSD. He was in a psychiatric ward almost every month in 2017 for suicidal ideation from PTSD. There is medical evidence he was cleared for mental health and he was barred from reenlistment. His record was perfect except for one infraction for not having an inspection ready haircut. All other incidents occurred after combat. c. He was granted a secret security clearance which led to him gathering intelligence for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). At Little Havana, after dragging all the dead bodies out, they slept where those KIA had be terminated. His autobiography will explain this in graphic detail. They secured the area, took prisoners of war, and administered first aid to the wounded. He served admirably and to the high standards of the 82nd Airborne Division. He had the honor of meeting General S while on gate guard at the Russian Arms Compounds in Grenada. 3. Records show the applicant served in Grenada from 25 October 1983 through 4 November 1983, in an imminent danger pay area. 4. The applicant received non-judicial punishment for being derelict in the performance of duty on 29 May 1984. 5. The applicant’s record contains a letter from the applicant’s commander to his mother indicating the applicant had been absent without leave since 17 July 1984. 6. The complete facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not present in the available record. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 26 February 1985, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations–Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He completed 2 years, 1 month and 21 days of net active service this period. He had two periods of lost time. His service was characterized as UOTHC. 7. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 8. On 19 July 2007, this Board granted the applicant partial relief by furnishing him a Correction to DD Form 214 (DD Form 215) to amend his DD Form 214 to reflect that he had 00 years, 00 months and 09 days of Foreign Service. 9. The applicant provides a seven page letter addressed to VA detailing the events of his military service. 10. On 18 April 2008, this Board granted the applicant partial relief by furnishing him a DD Form 215 to amend his DD Form 214 to reflect that he had 00 years, 00 months and 11 days of Foreign Service. 11. On 11 January 2018, 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 sufficient evidence of a medical disability or condition which would support a change to the character or reason for the discharge in this case. A copy of the complete medical advisory was provided to the Board for their review and consideration 12. On 7 February 2019, the applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion for comment or rebuttal. He did not respond. 13. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial at any time after the charges have been preferred. A UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate. Paragraph 3-7a states that an honorable discharge is given when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance. 14. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his statements, and the FSM's service record, in light of the published Department of Defense guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the relief was warranted. The applicant’s contentions, medical concerns, and the medical advisory were carefully considered. The advisory official determined there may have been some mitigating factors to his recorded misconduct. Records showing the court- martial charges leading to his voluntary separation for the good of the service is not available for review. The Board applied Department of Defense standards of liberal consideration to the complete evidentiary record. The Board agreed the misconduct does not warrant an upgrade to an honorable discharge; however, an under honorable conditions characterization is appropriate based upon the advisory. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 :X :X :X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant amendment of the ABCMR's decision in Docket Number AR20070000274 on 19 July 2007 and AR20080000892 on 17 April 2008. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing him a DD Form 214 for the period ending 26 February 1985 showing his characterization of service as general, under honorable conditions. 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 set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 stated that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial at any time after the charges have been preferred. The request must include the Soldier's acknowledgement that the Soldier understood the elements of the offense(s) charged and that the Soldier was guilty of the charge(s) or of a lesser included offense which also authorized the imposition of a punitive discharge. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate. b. An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would have been clearly inappropriate. c. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 3. On 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 4. 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. 5. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//