ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Record of Proceedings


IN THE CASE OF: 
BOARD DATE: 12 September 2019 
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180016429

APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant request his under honorable conditions 
(general) discharge be upgraded to honorable

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

   *	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Medical Record - Consultation Sheet
*	Health Record – Chronological Record of Medical Care (Psychology Clinic)
*	Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings (MEB)
*	MEB Rebuttal
*	MEB Appeal
   *	Department of Veteran Affairs – Disability Evaluation System Proposed Rating 
FACTS:
1.	The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United 
States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of 
Military Records 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.	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 AR20140003092 on 12 August 2015.

3.	The applicant states he was in treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 
alcohol abuse, migraines, and sleep disorder at the time of his driving while influenced 
(DWI).  After an evaluation the applicant failed to meet retention standards which led to 
a medical evaluation board (MEB). His service connected issues led to his DWI he was 
seeking help for since returning from OEF 09-11.

4.	On 1 January 2009, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for three years at the 
age of 20.

5.	His record is void of a separation packet or other evidence that shows the specific 
circumstances surrounding his separation; however, on 8 January 2013, discharge




orders were published with an effective date of discharge for the applicant as 15 
January 2013.	.

6.	His record is void of a separation packet.  His DD Form 214 shows:

*	Separation Date:  15 January 2013
*	Net Active Service:  4 years, and 15 days
*	Separation Authority:  AR 635-200, PARA 14-12c
*	Type of Separation: Discharge
*	Character of Service:  Under Honorable Conditions (General)
*	Narrative Reason for Separation:  Misconduct, (Serious Offense)
*	Lost Time: None

7.	On 25 January 2014, the applicant applied to the ABCMR. His request for upgrade 
was denied. The board stated in part, “There is no evidence in the record, nor has the 
applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly 
discharged.”

8.	In support of his application the applicant provides a copy of:

   a.	A medical consultation sheet dated 15 February 2012, showing he was not 
deployable but would have a follow-up on 22 February 2012.

   b.	A health record dated 31 July 2012 showing his chronological record of medical 
care by the psychology clinic.

c.	His medical evaluation board proceedings dated 16 August 2012 showing

      (1)	He was diagnosed with generalized anxiety order which fell below retention 
standards. The disorder occurred while in an active duty status and did not exist prior to 
service.  He was unable to perform duties in his MOS and it was recommended he not 
be retained in service. His condition continues to worsen, he received a DWI and his 
performance has been downhill. He is facing separation from the service which is also 
affecting his mental status. He continues to see behavioral health on a bi-weekly basis. 
He has relationship problems, has been in ASAP for 7 months and continues to have bi- 
weekly appointments.  The MEB approval authority further states the applicant's 
medical condition/limitations affect unit accomplishing mission.  He needs medication 
that prevents him from deploying and is unable to carry a weapon or perform field duties 
or daily duties. The applicant was referred to a PEB.

     (2)	The applicants MEB counsel appealed the MEB findings diagnosing him with 
anxiety disorder, stating the VA diagnosed him with PTSD. The MEB must accept the 
VA's findings.  Additionally the incapacitating headaches he suffers from occur 12-13
     



per month lasting up to 4 days. As described the condition does not meet retention 
standards.

9.	On 8 August 2019, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Clinical Psychologist 
submitted an advisory which was provided to the Board. The evaluator reviewed 
available administrative and medical records and provides a thorough overview of his 
military service performance and disciplinary actions, medical records (military and 
Veterans Affairs), it states, the reviewed documents DO support the existence of a 
behavioral health condition at the time of discharge; The applicant's records indicate 
that the applicant DID NOT meet medical retention standards. PTSD IS a mitigating 
factor for the misconduct that led to his discharge.

10.	The applicant requests his discharge be upgraded to under honorable conditions or 
honorable due to his failing to meet retention standards as a result of service connected 
medical conditions that occurred post-deployment Afghanistan which led to an MEB. His 
available record shows he served honorably for 3 years, 1 month, and 23 days during 
which time he was awarded and commended for his service. He supported the Global 
War on Terrorism and served in Afghanistan where he redeployed and subsequently 
started to be seen for mental health and physical conditions that resulted in an MEB for 
diagnosed Anxiety disorder and VA Diagnosed PTSD and ultimately referred him to a 
PEB.

    a.	His records show he was administratively separated and demonstrate 
administrative irregularity in that they are void of evidence showing a DWI, UCMJ action 
or a separation packet that provides the detailed circumstances surrounding his 
separation process.  We are unable to determine and it is unknown if UCMJ was 
initiated or if he was processed according to regulation, specifically at what point during 
the MEB or if, the GCMCA approval authority determined to administratively separate 
the applicant vice allowing him to continue medical processing.

       (1)	AR 635-200 provides when it is determined a Soldier being processed for 
separation under chapter 14 does not meet medical standards for retention, they will be 
referred to an MEB. The administrative separation proceedings will continue, but final 
action by the separation authority will not be taken pending the results of the MEB.  If 
the MEB findings indicate referral to a PEB copies of the MEB will be forwarded to the 
General Court Martial Convening Authority and unit commander. The GCMCA may 
direct, in writing, that the Soldier be processed through the physical disability system 
when action under UCMJ has not been initiated, and one of the following has been 
determined: The medical conditions is the direct or substantial contributing cause of the 
conduct that led to the recommendation to administratively elimination or other 
circumstances warrant disability processing vice elimination
       



      (2)	The GCMCA authority to determine whether a case is to be processed 
through medical disability channels may not be delegated

   b.	The Under Secretary of Defense of Military and Personnel Readiness published 
guidance to the Service Boards for Corrections of Military Records that states:

      (1)	At the time of the applicant's discharge, PTSD was largely unrecognized by 
the medical community and DOD.  However, both the medical community and DOD 
now have a more thorough understanding of PTSD and its potential to serve as a 
causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct when the condition is not diagnosed and 
treated in a timely fashion. Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely 
for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the 
possible re-characterization of their overall service even if the sexual assault or sexual 
harassment was unreported, or the mental health condition was not diagnosed until 
years later; and

      (2)	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 mental health 
conditions, including PTSD. The veteran’s testimony alone, oral or written, may 
establish the existence of a condition or experience, that the condition or experience 
existed during or was aggravated by military service, and that the condition or 
experience excuses or mitigates the discharge.

   c.	When asked to determine if there is a nexus between a behavioral health 
condition and the misconduct resulting in the applicant’s discharge The ARBA clinical 
psychologist, stated based on the available evidence his records do support the 
existence of behavioral health condition at the time of his discharge. The records 
indicate the applicant did not meet medical retention standards. PTSD is a mitigating 
factor for the misconduct that led to his discharge.

11.	In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his 
service record, and his statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, 
or clemency.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After reviewing the application and all supporting evidence, the Board found that full 
relief was warranted. The board applied Office of the Secretary of Defense standards of 
liberal consideration and clemency to the complete evidentiary record, including the 
applicant’s statement and the Medical Advisory and found the statement and evidence 
of PTSD to be compelling. The Board agreed that the applicant’s case warrants 
clemency in that the applicant’s PTSD is a mitigating factor in the misconduct that 
resulted in the applicant’s discharge characterization.





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 a 
recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of 
the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a 
DD Form 214 (with a through date of 2013-01-15) showing the following amendments:


•	item 24 (Character of Service) to "Honorable"
•	item 25 (Separation Authority) to "Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-3"
•	item 26 (Separation Code) to "JFF"
•	item 27 (Reentry (RE) Code) to "1"
•	item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) to "Secretarial Authority"



 X	
CHAIRPERSON

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.	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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(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 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members 
for misconduct. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is 
clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A 
UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter; 
however, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by 
the Soldier’s overall record. Only a general court-martial convening authority may 
approve an honorable discharge or delegate approval authority for an honorable 
discharge under this provision of regulation. Paragraph 14-12c provides for the 
separation when there is a pattern of misconduct involving acts of drug abuse

   d.	When the medical treatment facility (MTF) commander or attending medical 
officer determines that a Soldier being processed for administrative separation under 
chapters 7 (see sec IV), or 14, does not meet the medical fitness standards for 
retention, he/she will refer the Soldier to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The 
administrative separation proceedings will continue, but final action by the separation 
authority will not be taken, pending the results of MEB.

      (1)	If the MEB findings indicate that referral of the case to a physical evaluation 
board (PEB) is warranted for disability processing under the provisions of AR 635–40, 
the MTF commander will furnish copies of the approved MEB proceedings to the 
Soldier’s GCMCA and unit commander. The GCMCA may direct, in writing, that the
      



Soldier be processed through the physical disability system when action under the 
UCMJ has not been initiated, and one of the following has been determined:

          (a)	The Soldier’s medical condition is the direct or substantial contributing 
cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative elimination.

         (b)	Other circumstances of the individual case warrant disability processing 
instead of further processing for administrative separation.

      (2)	The authority of the GCMCA to determine whether a case is to be processed 
through medical disability channels or under administrative separation provisions will 
not be delegated.

      (3)	The GCMCA’s signed decision to process a Soldier through the physical 
disability system will be transmitted to the MTF commander as authority for referral of 
the case to a PEB. Copies of the GCMCA’s decision will be furnished to the unit 
commander and included in the administrative separation proceedings. The unit 
commander will suspend processing of the administrative separation action pending the 
PEB.

*	If the Soldier is found physically fit, the administrative separation action 
will be resumed
*	If the Soldier is found physically unfit, the administrative separation action 
will be abated

       (4)	Disability processing is inappropriate if the conditions in b(1)(a) and (b) do 
not apply, if UCMJ action has been initiated, or if the Soldier has been medically 
diagnosed as drug dependent.

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.  Standards for review




should rightly consider the unique nature of these cases and afford each veteran a 
reasonable opportunity for relief even if the sexual assault or sexual harassment was 
unreported, or the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years later. 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 Boards for Correction of 
Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency 
determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal 
sentence.  BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-
martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a 
court-martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, 
which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice.

   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, 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.

   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.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//