IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 July 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170017258 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his earlier requests for: a. a change of his characterization of service to honorable instead of general under honorable conditions and b. his narrative reason for separation changed. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 29349 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 18 October 2017 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * two Transcripts * eight Certificates of Training/Completion * Headquarters, United States Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon, Orders 332-253, dated 28 November 2006 * DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 5 December 2006 * Congressional correspondence * DA Form 268A (Honorable Discharge Certificate), dated 16 December 2007 * DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 26 October 2007 * Certificate of Achievement, dated 30 October 2007 * United States Army Oath of Reenlistment Certificate, dated 17 December 2007 * Certificate of Promotion, dated 1 November 2007 * DA Form 348 (Equipment Operators Qualification Record), dated 19 October 2009 * two DA Forms 4980 (Army Achievement Medal Certificate), dated 12 March 2009 and 13 August 2010 * two DA Forms 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 5 May 2009 and 15 August 2010 * three Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) letters, dated 4 February 2013 and 2 December 2016 * Medical Record extracts? FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by and by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20130019485 on 29 May 2014. 2. The applicant provided new evidence not previously considered that warrants consideration by the Board at this time. 3. The applicant states: a. His characterization of service should be upgraded to honorable and his narrative reason should be changed to Secretarial Authority. b. He was separated from the Army pursuant to his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. c. At the time he executed his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, he was suffering from a variety of mental health issues, including major depressive disorder, anxiety, bi-polar disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with only one of which was properly diagnosed by the Army. d. He was placed on pretrial confinement for 80 days, while suffering from his mental health issues. These mental health issues existed throughout his military career and also at the time of his alleged misconduct. e. In accordance with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel's memorandum, dated 3 September 2014, and the "Clarifying Guidance" memorandum issued by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, dated 25 August 2017, liberal consideration will be given to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole, or in part, on matters relating to mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). f. His case clearly fits within the guidance issued by the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense and granting his request is the only fair and equitable outcome. 4. On 1 November 2005, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. 5. The applicant provided copies of his high school transcript and his: a. Certificate of Training for Basic Combat Training, dated 26 January; showing he successfully completed Basic Training;? b. DA Form 5286-R, dated 28 July 2006, that shows his completion of critical advanced individual training tasks; c. Certificate of Signal Regimental Affiliation, dated 10 August 2006, that shows he achieved the requisite and professional standards for recognition as an affiliated member of the U.S. Army Signal Regiment; d. U.S. Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon Diploma, dated 10 August 2006, for graduating Advanced Individual Training and completing the Satellite Communications Systems Operator-Maintainer (Strat 1) Course; e. Headquarters, U.S. Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon Orders 332-253, dated 28 November 2006, which awarded him primary military occupational specialty (MOS) 25S (Satellite Communications Systems Operator-Maintainer) effective 11 December 2006 or upon completion of training and award of required security clearance; f. DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 5 December 2006, which shows he successfully completed the 102-ASIIC Satellite Systems/Network Coordinator Course during the period 16 August 2006 to 5 December 2006; g. U.S. Army Signal and Center and Fort Gordon Diploma, dated 11 December 2006, that shows he completed the Satellite Systems/Network Coordinator (4C-F19/ 102-ASIIC) Course during the period 16 August 2006 to 11 December 2006. h. Staff Psychologist, Department of the Air Force, Pacific Air Forces memorandum, dated 20 July 2007, to his company commander, subject: Notification of Condition Unsuitable for Continued Military Service, which shows, in part: (1) He was evaluated in the 18th Medical Groups Life Skills Clinic that resulted in an evaluation conclusion that he had a condition that was likely unsuitable for continued military service. He was diagnosed with the following conditions that were determined to have existed prior to military service: * major depressive disorders, moderate recurrent * anxiety disorder not otherwise specified * dysthymic disorder (2) Military service was deemed not to have exacerbated the conditions and the conditions caused him to be administratively unsuitable for duty. (3) His conditions were not amendable to hospitalization, treatment transfer, disciplinary action, retraining or reclassification within the military system. It was unlikely that any effort to rehabilitate him into a satisfactory member of the military would be successful. (4) His disorder was of a severity that significantly impaired his ability to function effectively in a military environment. He was determined to not be considered worldwide qualified and he could not be placed on mobility or deployment status. (5) His commander was informed that upon receipt of this memorandum, his command was required to initiate administrative discharge proceedings if they determined his condition interfered with his assignment or duty performance. Discharge under this provision was not appropriate if his record would support discharge for another reason, such as misconduct. If the command chose not to initiate separation action, this decision had to be reviewed by the discharge authority. i. DA Form 4187, dated 26 October 2007, that shows he was promoted to specialist effective 1 November 2007; j. Certificate of Achievement, dated 30 October 2007, that shows he was selected for Soldier of the Month for October 2008; k. his Certificate of Promotion, dated 1 November 2007, that shows his promotion on the same date to the rank of specialist; l. Oath of Reenlistment Certificate, dated 17 December 2007, that shows on the same date, he reenlisted; m. U.S. Army Installation Management Command Letter, dated 1 May 2008, that shows he had 54 semester hours of college credits; 6. On 31 December 2008, the applicant was issued a DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) for depression. This form shows his different levels of functional capacity in six factors (PULHES) with an assigned temporary rating of "4" for "S" (psychiatric) until 30 March 2009. This form was also an extension of a temporary profile issued on 17 September 2008. He was restricted from weapons and deployment. 7. The applicant provided copies of: a. DA Form 87 for the period 2 through 6 March 2009 that shows he successfully completed the Combat Lifesaver's Course; b. Army Achievement Medal Certificate, dated 12 March 2009, that shows he earned the award for the period 4 January 2007 to 29 May 2009; c. Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 9 April 2009, that shows: (1) he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings, (2) he was diagnosed with major depressive disorder; in full remission; and he had no potential for self-harm or posed as a harm to others; (3) treatment at the time was not deemed necessary; (4) he was returned to duty with no duty status change; (5) he was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command; and he shows no evidence of mental disorder. d. DA Form 638, page 1, dated 12 March 2009, that shows he was recommended for award of the Army Achievement Medal for the period 4 October 2007 to 29 May 2009; e. DA Form 348, dated 19 October 2009, that shows he various driver training; f. Certificate of Completion, dated 29 October 2009, that shows he completed the Accident Avoidance Course for Army Motor Vehicle Drivers; g. Certificate of Training for the period 14 December 2009 to 18 December 2009 that shows he successfully completed 40 hours in driver training; h. DA Form 638, page 1, dated 12 August 2010, that shows he was recommended for award of the Army Achievement Medal for the period 6 September 2009 to 7 September 2010; i. Army Achievement Medal Certificate, dated 13 August 2010, shows the medal was awarded for the period 6 September 2009 to 7 September 2010; j. Certificate of Completion, dated 13 August 2010, for Level 1 Awareness Training; 8. His DA Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), dated 11 February 2011, shows in part: a. he indicated "Y" (Yes) to having or had in: (1) item 15 – frequent or severe headaches; a head injury, memory loss or amnesia; a period of unconsciousness or concussion; nervous. (2) item 17 – loss of memory or amnesia, or neurological symptoms; frequent trouble sleeping; received counseling of any type; depression or excessive worry; been evaluated or treated for a mental condition; used illegal drugs or abused prescription drugs. b. item 29 (Explanation of "Yes" Answers), in part, he fell out of a Humvee (high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle) and struck his head which bled pretty good; electro conclusive therapy had caused him consistent problems with memory c. item 30 (Examiner's Summary and Elaboration of All Pertinent Data), in part, his frequent headaches had not been evaluated. The applicant believed the headaches may have been related to stress in life and at his workplace. His fall from the Humvee and head injury occurred at Fort Benning and he was not evaluated or treated. 9. His DA Form 2697(Report of Medical Assessment), dated 17 February 2011, shows in item 12 (Since your last medical assessment/physical examination, have you been treated by a health care provider, admitted to a hospital, or had Surgery?), he indicated "yes" and annotated "Behavior Health Office at Fort Drum and Kadena Air Force Base, Okinawa, Japan. 10. On 23 March 2011, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of paragraph 14-21b, Army Regulation 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct. His commander's rationale for the proposed action was the applicant's failure to obey a lawful order by possessing Spice and an unregistered weapon, failure to obey a commissioned officer, disrespecting a noncommissioned officer on diverse occasions, being found drunk on duty, making a false statement, and failing to be at his appointed place of duty. On the same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notice. 11. On 31 March 2011, the applicant and his counsel acknowledged his rights regarding his proposed separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b. 12. On 1 April 2011, his commanding officer submitted a Commander's Report – Proposed Separation Under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-21b, in which he recommended the applicant's separation from service prior to the expiration of his current term of service under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b, Army Regulation 635-200, for failing to obey a lawful order by possessing Spice and an unregistered weapon, failing to obey a commissioned officer, disrespecting a noncommissioned officer on diverse occasions, being found drunk on duty, making a false official statement, and failing to be at his appointed place of duty. He recommended issuance of a general under honorable conditions discharge. 13. On 1 April 2011, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to his proposed separation action. 14. On 1 April 2011, his intermediate commander recommended separation from the Army prior to the expiration of the applicant's expiration of current term of service. He recommended issuance of a general under honorable conditions discharge. He noted the applicant's receipt of two field grade Articles 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice. His commander stated he continued to display attributes that were not compatible with military service, he had been arrested on two occasions, and he did not have the attitude for continued service. His commander recommended a service characterization of general under honorable conditions. 15. On 10 May 2011, the staff judge advocate recommended charges be preferred against the applicant and the charges and their specifications be referred to a Special Court-Martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge. 16. On 10 June 2011, the applicant's chain of command recommended the applicant's trial by Special Court-Martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge. 17. On 10 June 2011, charges were preferred against the applicant for" * willfully disobeying a lawful order of a noncommissioned officer on or about 4 April 2011 * using disrespectful language toward a superior noncommissioned officer and behaving in a threatening fashion towards a superior noncommissioned officer. 18. On 10 June 2011, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He acknowledged he was making the request of his own free will and he had not been subjected to any coercion. He acknowledged he understood the elements of the charged offenses and that he was guilty of at least one of the charged offenses or a related lesser-included offense and a. he did not desire further rehabilitation within the military, b. prior to submitting his request, he consulted with counsel, c. he understood that if his request for discharge was accepted, he could be discharged with an other than honorable discharge and he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life; there was no automatic upgrading or review by any government agency and he had to apply to the Army Discharge Review Board or ABCMR for a review of his discharge, d. he could withdraw his request for discharge only with the consent of the commander exercising general court-martial authority or without the commander's consent in the event trial resulted in an acquittal or the sentence did not include a punitive discharge even though one could be adjudged by the court, e. if he departed in an absent without leave status, his request for discharge could be processed and he could be discharged even though absent, and f. in the event he was tried and acquitted of the charges or he was not adjudged a punitive discharge even though one could have been adjudged, his request for discharge was automatically canceled. 19. On 13 June 2011, the applicant's chain of command approved his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, and recommended issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 20. On 22 June 2011, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10. He directed issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. 21. On 23 June 2011, his commanding officer signed a Memorandum for Record, in which he appointed a noncommissioned officer to clear the applicant from Fort Drum, NY. The memorandum for record also shows the applicant was placed on pre-trial confinement on 4 April 2011 and he was released from XXXX County Jail on 22 June 2011. 22. On 24 June 2011, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 5 years, 5 months, and 6 days of net active service and in: a. block 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) the – * Army Good Conduct Medal * National Defense Service Medal * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Korea Defense Service Medal * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon with Numeral Two * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar? b. block 18 (Remarks), in part: service in Japan from 4 October 2007 to 3 May 2009; service in Korea from 9 September 2009 to 24 October 2010, c. block 26 (Separation Code) – "KFS," d. block 27 (Reentry Code) – "4," e. block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial," and f. block 29 (Dates of Time Lost During this Period) – "Under 10 USC [U.S. Code] 972: 20110405-20110622" 23. The applicant provided a copy of his initial outpatient evaluation from Alegent Health, Psychiatric Associates of Shenandoah, dated 15 September 2011, which shows, in part: (1) he had a lengthy psych history with drug abuse and alcohol abuse starting from approximately age 12 on and (2) he was diagnosed with Axis I: mood disorder, presently depressed, anxious, history of PTSD, substance abuse; Axis II: deferred at the time; Axis IV: moderate to severe due to his severe negative thinking, shame and his identity problems related to his past; and Axis V: about 40. He was referred to the VA. 24. On 11 April 2012, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. 25. The applicant provided copies of his: a. VA rating decision letter, dated 4 February 2013, which shows, in part, his major depressive disorder with anxiety and dysthymia was rated at 20 percent and related to his military service. b. a VA consult request, dated 11 February 2013, which shows his major depressive disorder had been evaluated and increased to a 100-percent disability rating. 26. On 29 May 2014 and in ABCMR Docket Number AR20130019485, the Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. The Board noted: a. He underwent a medical status evaluation in 2009 and at that time, he was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, in full remission. His disposition was to return to duty with no change in status and he was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action by the chain of command. The military psychiatrist stated the applicant showed no evidence of mental disorder, defective judgment or moral reasoning, he was recommended for further service. b. He began exhibited a pattern of misconduct that included failing to obey orders, possessing spice and an unregistered weapon, being disrespectful to noncommissioned officers, being found drunk on duty, and making a false official statement. Accordingly, his chain of command initiated separation action against him for a pattern of misconduct. However, prior to approval of this separation, court-martial charges were preferred against him. As such, the administrative separation action was halted pending the outcome of the court-martial. c. He could have elected to face the court-martial if he believed his behavioral health condition contributed to his misconduct but he elected a discharge under chapter 10, administrative separation processing disposition takes precedence over medical processing. The applicant voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the applicant's discharge accurately reflected his overall service. d. Based on his record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. His misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory. Therefore, he was not entitled to either a general or an honorable discharge. 27. The applicant provided copies of the following: a. Clarinda Mental Health Institute medical record extract, dated 4 August 2014, which shows he was hospitalized for signs and symptoms of increased mania with increasingly bizarre behaviors, poor sleep, worsening delusional thinking. He was diagnosed with Axis I: major depressive disorder, recurrent history of bipolar disorder, and history of THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol (marijuana)) dependence; Axis IV: Moderate; Axis V: GAF (Global Assessment of Functioning) – 15. b. a Secretary of Defense memorandum, dated 3 September 2014, subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military (BCMRs)/Naval Records (BCNRs) Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which provided supplemental policy guidance on applications and directed the review of medical considerations, mitigating factors, and procedures for veterans seeking redress of punitive, administrative, or other legal actions or to establish a nexus between PTSD and the misconduct underlying the Service member's discharge with a characterization of under other than honorable conditions. This memorandum also directed liberal consideration in finding that PTSD existed at the time of service any evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance is not applicable to cases involving pre-existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service. c. Joint Services Transcript, dated 2 June 2015, that shows his recommended credits by the American Council on Education for training he completed during his military service. d. VA letter, dated 25 August 2015, which was provided to him as a certificate to receive commissary store and exchange privileges from the Armed Forces. e. VA Discharge Summaries, dated 15 October 2016, which shows, in part: (1) he was admitted for cannabis use disorder, severe and (2) his discharge diagnosed was listed as bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, PTSD symptoms, cannabis use disorder, alcohol use disorder, as per psychological testing, anti-social personality/cluster B traits/borderline traits. f. Treatment Plan – Intake Notes, dated 25 October 2016, that show, in part, his diagnosis of major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate and PTSD, unspecified. g. VA letter, dated 2 December 2016, from a staff psychiatrist who stated: (1) the applicant had been a patient since 30 September 2011 and at the time, he had a 10-year history of psychiatric symptoms and he had carried a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, depressed, with symptoms of low mood, negative self-critical thinking, feeling hopeless and helpless, and anxiety symptoms, with panic symptoms; (2) the applicant had been admitted in the residential programs in 2013, 2015 and 2016, and on several medication trials for the treatment of his condition. h. a memorandum from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, dated 25 August 2017, 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, which was to provide greater uniformity amongst the review boards, provide clarifying guidance to ensure fair and consistent standards of review for veterans with mental health conditions or who experienced sexual assault or sexual harassment regardless of when they served or in which Military Department they served, and to inform veterans about how to achieve relief. 28. The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s military records. A review of Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) & Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS) indicates he was initially seen for behavioral health treatment in Feb 2017 while stationed in Okinawa. He reports significant history of depression and treatment (medication and ECT) prior to joining the service. In July 2007, his provider recommended administrative separation due to preexisting behavioral health conditions: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Dysthymic Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder. However a review of his service record indicates on occupational impairment. He discontinued treatment in Jul 2007 and telephone note from 20 Mar 2008 indicates he declined treatment but planned to meet with the chaplain. He returned to behavioral health treatment in October 2008. He was placed on Seroquel and the follow-up note from 31 Dec 2008 indicated a positive response to medication with improvement in symptoms. Provider note from 18 Feb 2009 indicates his MDD was in full remission (off medication) and was showing a positive response to his ADHD medication. He was sent to Tripler Army Medical Center and evaluated in April 2009 for a second opinion as his treating provider did not support a MOS change to 11B Infantryman. He completed psychometric testing and several clinical interviews. He was found to meet retention standards and was cleared for MOS change. He returned to treatment on 27 Jan 2010 due to increased depressive symptoms. The applicant reported he failed infantry training and was not able to graduate and lost two ranks while in training. He stated “this impacted him greatly and added to his depression.” He stated “he started drinking to cope.” He requested ECT treatment because he felt it helped him in 2004. Provider explained that depression of of such severity that ECT is needed did not meet accession standards and separation was a possibility. In addition, given his positive occupational functioning and prior response to medication, ECT wasn’t clinically appropriate at that time. On 5 Jan 2011, he was seen as a walk-in as a precaution after spice was found in his barracks room. He acknowledged smoking spice and drinking alcohol after a relationship ended. He was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and received individual and group therapy. In addition, he received an evaluation and mandatory treatment in the Alcohol Substance Abuse Program clinic. During his follow- up appointment on 26 Feb 2011, he discussed the possibility of requesting a chapter separation. On 2 Mar 2011, he completed a separation physical. On 9 Mar 2011, he was evaluated by a psychiatrist and cleared for administrative separation. On 29 Mar 2011, he was evaluated after becoming visibly distressed when he received his Article 15. He was evaluated on 22 Apr 2011 due to being non-cooperative in the civilian jail where he was in pretrial confinement. A safety check was conducted and he was cleared to return to pre-trial confinement. His last appointment was 24 May 2011, he was evaluated and found to meet retention standards prior to his discharge. A review of VA’s Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) indicates the applicant received a service connected disability rating of 40% with 20% for MDD with anxiety and dysthymia and 10% for degenerative joint disease (X2) with an effective date of 8 Aug 2011. VA correspondence indicates his disability rating was increased on or about August 2015 to 100% for Major Depressive Disorder. He has a significant behavioral health treatment history from September 2011 to the present in the VA system to include inpatient and outpatient services. His last inpatient admission from Oct 2016 indicated the following behavioral health history: Bipolar disorder, Alcohol Use Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder with borderline traits and Cannabis Use Disorder, Severe. Hospitalization was the result of excessive marijuana use disrupting his school work and increasing paranoid beliefs. He left against medical advice the day after his admission. He had previous VA psychiatric admissions in September 2013 (MDD), December 2013 (substance rehabilitation), August 2014 (substance induced mood disorder), March 2015 (Bipolar Disorder and Anxiety Disorder), September 2015 (PTSD from childhood trauma), and October 2016 (substance use treatment). In accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Secretary of Defense Liberal Guidance Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017, Clarifying Guidance there is documentation to support a behavioral health condition at the time of his discharge. While the applicant had a history of MDD, Dysthymia, and Anxiety Disorder prior to military service, he did not report any symptoms during his MEPS physical. In addition, while he was treated for depression while on active duty, there is no indication of occupational impairment until his final duty station. His evaluations, awards, and promotions indicate occupational success. His ability to function for periods off medication also indicate a lack of occupational impairment. His depressive symptoms worsened during stressful events (failing infantry training and relationship ending). His difficulties at his last duty station were exacerbated by his relationship ending, and now desire to leave the Army. However, he met retention standards at the time of his discharge. His level of functioning at the time of discharge is also noted in his initial disability rating for MDD of 20%. While he was subsequently diagnosed with PTSD (childhood trauma) and Bipolar Disorder a review of military medical records does not contain any manic symptoms or symptoms meeting the diagnostic criteria of PTSD. His service connected behavioral health condition is MDD with an initial disability rating of 20%. His military treatment record indicates his primary symptoms were depression with diagnoses of MDD and Dysthymic Disorder. Neither MDD or Dysthymic Disorder are considered mitigating factors for the misconduct that led to his discharge. ? BOARD DISCUSSION: After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to grant relief and amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20130019485 on 29 May 2014. The Board noted that the applicant had already received an upgrade to General, Under Honorable Conditions. The board applied Office of the Secretary of Defense standards of liberal consideration, and agreed with the ARBA Medical Advisor that neither MDD or Dysthymic Disorder are considered mitigating factors for the misconduct that led to his discharge. The Board also applied Office of the Secretary of Defense standards of clemency to the complete evidentiary record, including the applicant’s statement, and found insufficient evidence of error or inequity; the applicant’s service record exhibits numerous instances of misconduct and the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of post-service honorable conduct that may have mitigated the misconduct. The Board agreed that the applicant’s discharge characterization is appropriate. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant amendment of the ABCMR's decision in Docket Number AR20130019485 on 29 May 2014. 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, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. b. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Chapter 10, in effect at the time, provided that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges were preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate. When a Soldier is to be discharged under other than honorable conditions, the separation authority will direct an immediate reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. 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 under other than honorable conditions 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 acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided clarifying guidance, which expanded the 2014 Secretary of Defense memorandum, that directed the BCM/NRs and DRBs to give liberal consideration to veterans looking to upgrade their less-than-honorable discharges by expanding review of discharges involving diagnosed, undiagnosed, or misdiagnosed mental health conditions, including PTSD; traumatic brain injury; or who reported sexual assault or sexual harassment. 5. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military BCM/NRs and DRBs 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 court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than 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 governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. b. 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. 6. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, established policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. The DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear- cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. Specific instructions for item 28 of the DD Form 214, stated this entry is based on regulatory or other authority and can be checked against the cross reference in Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes). 7. Army Regulation 635-5-1 implements Department of Defense policy for standardization of certain entries on the DD Form 214 and prescribes the specific authorities, reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty and the separation program designator codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170017258 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170017258 16 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170017258 15