IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 September 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210008901 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests to change his narrative reason of "Unsuitability – Apathy, defective attitude, or inability to expend efforts constructively," to a more favorable one. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge) in lieu of DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Self-Authored Statement * DD Form 4 (Enlistment and Reenlistment Agreement), dated 28 February 1979 * DA Form 2 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part I), prepared 4 August 1982 * DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II), prepared 16 April 1979 and reviewed 18 December 1981 * Service Medical and Dental Records, 57 pages * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for period ending 20 September 1982 * U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center, Saint Louis, MO, Orders Number D-02- 011724, dated 20 February 1985 * National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) letter to Applicant, dated 21 October 2015 * Psychological and Behavioral Consultants, Beachwood, OH, Medical Initial Assessment, dated 23 August 2020 * VA Form 20-0995 (Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim) dated 30 October 2020 * Five Letters/Character References 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. The applicant states: a. He requests a change in his narrative reason because it states he was unsuitable, defective attitude, inability to expend efforts constructively. He was discharged at Fort Campbell, KY in 1982 for not accepting the racial behavior from Staff Sergeant (SSG) J_ C_. He was a great Soldier who followed orders. He had the second highest marks in his SQT (Skill Qualification Test) training and introduced West Point Cadets ADA (Air Defense Artillery). b. No matter how hard he tried SSG would find an excuse to punish him. SSG gave him extra duty on a regular basis; made a spectacle of him, made him sleep in the back of the barracks to make an example of him. He told him, he would never be more than a janitor when he left the service, and he did just that. No one would hire him for jobs other than to clean and cook. He tried factory work but could not get hired after human resources reviewed his DD Form 214. The cooking and cleaning jobs were minimum wage. It forced him to have to work two full time jobs to support his family. He feels he was cheated from watching his family grow up because he had to work a double shift from 1982 to present. However, if his country needed him to fight, he would go without question. 3. On 10 April 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. On 30 December 1981, he reenlisted for a term of 3 years. At the time of his reenlistment, he was assigned to Fort Campbell, KY, in the military occupational specialty 16S (Man Portable Air Defense System Crewman). 4. His available medical records from 1979 to 1982 show he was seen by medical personnel for various injuries and illnesses; however, it showed no evidence of a mental disorder of illness. 5. On 8 February 1982, the applicant was medically released from the U.S. Army Noncommissioned Officer Academy, Fort Campbell, KY, because he received a profile which prevented him from meeting the POI (program of instruction) requirements. 6. His record shows he was counseled on four occasions from 11 March 1982 to 29 June 1982 for having an unsecure wall locker; for his monthly performance, with negative and positive comments; and losing his identification card. 7. On 11 August 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for on or about 14 July `982, wrongfully using marijuana, in violation of Article 134, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 8. In preparation for separation, the applicant underwent a medical and mental status evaluation. The medical examiner cleared him for separation or retention. The mental status evaluation indicated: a. The applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings; was mentally responsible; and met the retention requirements. The psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with schizoid personality, chronic, moderate, LOD (line of duty): No, EPTS (existed prior to service). He stated the diagnosis represents a character and behavior disorder within the meaning of AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). This condition and the problems presented by this individual are not, in the opinion of the examiner, amendable to hospitalization treatment, transfer, disciplinary action, training or reclassification within the military system. b. It is unlikely that any effort to rehabilitate or develop this individual into a satisfactory member of the military will be successful. It is recommended that he be considered for administrative action as deemed appropriate by command, with consideration for administrative separation from the service. 9. On 13 August 1982, the applicant’s immediate commander notified the applicant that he was recommending separation actions against him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 13 for unsuitability and his reasons for his recommendation was based on the applicant being repeatedly counseled by his chain of command with no positive results; he was counseled and received an Article 15, UCMJ, for the same offense. It was in the commander's judgement that his repeated offenses were intentional and any further attempts at rehabilitation would be a waste of time. a. The applicant acknowledged he had been notified of the pending separation action against him and he had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action, understood his rights, waived consideration of his case before a board of officers, and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. He stated: (1) He was amenable to the separation action but requested to be given an honorable discharge. The basis for his request for an honorable discharge was AR 635- 200, paragraph 13-15 (Type of Separation). He was diagnosed with a personality disorder on 11 August 1982 and the doctor recommended he be separated from the service. His company commander's recommendation was the same as the doctor's recommendation. He believed his commander based his decision to separate him from the service on the doctor's recommendation. (2) It is a circumvention of the regulation to recommend separation without fully disclosing the basis for that recommendation. Paragraph 13-15 required he be given an honorable discharge and for these reasons he requested an honorable. b. His immediate commander recommended discharge with an honorable characterization of service and on 9 September 1982, the separation authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant to be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate. c. On 20 September 1982, the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13-4c (1), with narrative reason "Unsuitability – Apathy, defective, attitude or inability to expend efforts constructively, separation and separation code ?LMJ,? and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training), Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center, Saint Louis, MO, to complete his service obligation. His service was characterized as honorable. He completed 8 months and 21 days of his 3-year contractual obligation. His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded or authorized: * Army Service Ribbon * Good Conduct Medal * Overseas Service Ribbon * Air Assault Badge 10. On 27 February 1985, the applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR. 11. The applicant provides: a. Service Medical and Dental Records, 57 pages (available for review). b. NPRC letter to Applicant, dated 21 October 2015, shows the NPRC responded to his request for a copy of his official military personnel file. c. Psychological and Behavioral Consultants, Beachwood, OH, Medical Initial Assessment, dated 23 August 2020, shows the applicant was seen for a chief complaint of he had been diagnosed by the VA as having schizophrenic personality. Apathy to construct his mental efforts in a negative mental matter. He would like to be evaluated by a healthcare professional. He was trying to get the VA to compensate him for inaccurately diagnosing him in 1982 with schizophrenic personality. He says that it was listed on his DD Form 214. He had an honorable discharge but that his occupational choices were limited to food service and custodial work. It states: Assessment 1 – no diagnosis – he was diagnosed with schizophrenic personality in 1982 after he finished his 3 years of Army service. Unclear basis for this diagnosis. Never been admitted and the only psychiatric evaluation was the one when he was leaving the Army. For billing purposes, he will use "Adjustment Disorder" because he did not find a code for "No Diagnoses." d. VA Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim, dated 30 October 2020, shows the applicant requested compensation from the VA. The applicant stated he was a veteran who had excellent service until he went to Fort Campbell, KY. A Sergeant put him in a tent behind the barracks and constantly humiliated him. This discharge prevented him from getting a job with the exception of food service and custodial jobs. He had three years of evaluations until he went to Fort Campbell. He is working two jobs at the time and is unable to attend a hearing. e. Five letters/character references from supervisors where he was employed, after his discharge as a food service worker and part of the custodian/janitorial staff. They described him as diligent and reliable; hard working; enthusiastic; and a true team player, and an employee who provided leadership and valuable assistance. 12. The applicant requests a more favorable narrative reason. He states he was discharged at Fort Campbell, KY in 1982 for not accepting the racial behavior from Staff Sergeant (SSG) J_ C_. He was a great Soldier who followed orders, but no matter how well he performed the SSG would find an excuse to punish him and consistently made a spectacle out of him. He told the applicant he would never be more than a janitor when he left the service and that is exactly what happened. The narrative reason language prevented him from securing any jobs other than jobs in the food service and janitorial fields. a. His record shows he was counseled on four occasions and accepted one NJP, during this period of service for wrongfully using marijuana. He completed 8 months and 21 days of his 3-year contractual obligation. b. In regards to his diagnoses; the applicant received a separation mental status evaluation and was diagnosed with schizoid personality, chronic, moderate; he was cleared for separation. He submitted medical documentation from a civilian psychiatrist contesting the diagnoses, which indicated there was no diagnosis, and he contends his narrative reason should be changed based on the misdiagnosis. The applicant also provided character references which show he was employed in either the food service or custodial field. c. The applicant contends there was racism involved in regards to his discharge. His record shows he was an African American Male. History has demonstrated when major policy changes based on culture, both service and society, it is not without challenge during implementation that may unknowingly jeopardize an applicant's well- being and rights during periods of service where behaviors were acknowledged but there was not policy and guidance outlined to report or properly address what may have occurred for members and/or commanders. See the "HISTORICAL CONTEXT" section. d. AR 635-200, Chapter 13 applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability. Paragraph 13-4c provided for separation for unsuitability, which included, but not limited to apathy (lack of appropriate interest) defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively. When separation for unsuitability was warranted the Soldier would receive an honorable or general discharge in accordance with his military record. A medical examination and mental status evaluation were required for chapter 13. Paragraph 5-3 states the separation of enlisted personnel is the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army and will be effected only by his authority. The discharge or release of any enlisted member of the Army for the convenience of the Government will be at the Secretary’s discretion and with the type of discharge as determined by him. e. AR 635-5-1 (Personnel Separations – Separation Program Designators), provides SPD Code "LMJ" is designated as the code for Authority: AR 635-200, paragraph 13-4c(1) and Reason: "Unsuitability –– apathy, defective attitudes, or inability to expand effort constructively." 13. The applicant requests a change in his narrative reason so that he may receive benefits. The ABCMR is not authorized to grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans' benefits; however, in reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition and his service record in light of the published DOD guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. 14. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The applicant is applying to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for to change his narrative reason of "Unsuitability – Apathy, defective attitude, or inability to expend efforts constructively," to a more favorable one. b. He requests a change in his narrative reason because it states he was unsuitable, defective attitude, inability to expend efforts constructively. He was discharged at Fort Campbell, KY in 1982 for not accepting the racial behavior from Staff Sergeant (SSG) J_ C_. He was a great Soldier who followed orders. He had the second highest marks in his SQT (Skill Qualification Test) training and introduced West Point Cadets ADA (Air Defense Artillery). c. The ABCMR Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor was asked to review this case. Documentation reviewed includes: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge) in lieu of DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Self-Authored Statement * DD Form 4 (Enlistment and Reenlistment Agreement), dated 28 February 1979 * DA Form 2 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part I), prepared 4 August 1982 * DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II), prepared 16 April 1979 and reviewed 18 December 1981 * Service Medical and Dental Records, 57 pages * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for period ending 20 September 1982 * U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center, Saint Louis, MO, Orders Number D-02- 011724, dated 20 February 1985 * National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) letter to Applicant, dated 21 October 2015 * Psychological and Behavioral Consultants, Beachwood, OH, Medical Initial Assessment, dated 23 August 2020 * VA Form 20-0995 (Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim) dated 30 October 2020 * Five Letters/Character References d. VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) was reviewed. e. A review of the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) & Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS) were not reviewed as they were not in use at the time of service. f. The ABCMR Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. The ROP indicates that the applicant entered military service on 10 April 1979 and was discharged on 20 September 1982, the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13-4c (1), with narrative reason "Unsuitability – Apathy, defective, attitude or inability to expend efforts constructively, separation and separation code ?LMJ. g. On 8 February 1982, the applicant was medically released from the U.S. Army Noncommissioned Officer Academy, Fort Campbell, KY, because he received a profile which prevented him from meeting the POI (program of instruction) requirements. h. His record shows he was counseled on four occasions from 11 March 1982 to 29 June 1982 for having an unsecure wall locker; for his monthly performance, with negative and positive comments; and losing his identification card. i. On 11 August 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for on or about 14 July `982, wrongfully using marijuana, in violation of Article 134, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). j. In preparation for separation, the applicant underwent a medical and mental status evaluation (MSE). The medical examiner cleared him for separation or retention. The mental status evaluation indicated: (1) The applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings; was mentally responsible; and met the retention requirements. The psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with schizoid personality, chronic, moderate, LOD (line of duty): No, EPTS (existed prior to service). He stated the diagnosis represents a character and behavior disorder within the meaning of AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). This condition and the problems presented by this individual are not, in the opinion of the examiner, amendable to hospitalization treatment, transfer, disciplinary action, training or reclassification within the military system. (2) It is unlikely that any effort to rehabilitate or develop this individual into a satisfactory member of the military will be successful. It is recommended that he be considered for administrative action as deemed appropriate by command, with consideration for administrative separation from the service. k. On 13 August 1982, the applicant’s immediate commander notified the applicant that he was recommending separation actions against him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 13 for unsuitability and his reasons for his recommendation was based on the applicant being repeatedly counseled by his chain of command with no positive results; he was counseled and received an Article 15, UCMJ, for the same offense. l. He was amenable to the separation action but requested to be given an honorable discharge. The basis for his request for an honorable discharge was AR 635-200, paragraph 13-15 (Type of Separation). He was diagnosed with a personality disorder on 11 August 1982 and the doctor recommended he be separated from the service. His company commander's recommendation was the same as the doctor's recommendation. He believed his commander based his decision to separate him from the service on the doctor's recommendation. m. JLV contains Behavioral Health diagnosis of Insomnia due to other mental disorder. n. The applicant does not have a service connection. o. After reviewing the available information and in accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Hagel Liberal Consideration Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017 Clarifying Guidance, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral Health advisor that the applicant has a mitigating diagnosis of Schizoid Personality. The applicant met retention standards at the time of discharge. The applicant does not have a service connection. Under liberal guidance, Schizoid Personality is a mitigating factor for his misconduct. Recommend that his narrative reason for separation be amended to “5-17 physical condition not a disability” and his separation code be changed to JKN or a separation code that matches him having a physical condition not a disability. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents and the evidence found within the military record, the Board determined that relief was warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s contentions, military record and regulatory guidance. The Board reviewed and concurred with the Agency Behavioral Health advisor opinion in that the applicant had mitigating factors for the misconduct. Based on the preponderance of evidence available for review, the Board determined the evidence presented sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 :X :X :X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : 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 for the period 20 September 1982 to show * Block 25 (Narrative Reason for Separation) 5-17 physical condition not a disability * Block 26 (Separation Code) JKN 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): A review of the applicant's record shows his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 20 September 1982, is missing important entries and/or contains inaccurate information that affect his eligibility for post- service benefits. As a result, amend the DD Form 214 by: * Deleting: o Item 12a (Date Entered AD This Period): 81 12 30 o Item 12c (Net Active Service This Period): 00 08 21 o Item 12d (Total Prior Active Service): 02 08 20 * Adding: o Item 12a: 79 04 10 o Item 12c: 3 5 11 o Item 12d: 00 00 00 o Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized: Korea Defense Service Medal HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Race Relations and Equal Opportunity. Historically, racism in the military services has been documented as prevalent since as early as 1775. President Truman signed Executive Order 9981 on 26 July 1948, committing the government to integrating the segregated military. Specific policy governing race relation education program were published in December 1971, January 1972, and January 1973. a. Of particular significance in race relations was the decision of the Secretary of the Army on 24 September 1972 to change the discharge status of some 167 black soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 25th Infantry (Colored), to honorable. The precipitating event was a shooting incident in Brownsville, TX early in the century. Around midnight on 13 August 1906, some sixteen to twenty horsemen rode through Brownsville firing weapons at homes and stores, leaving one person dead and two wounded. Witnesses alleged that the riders were "colored soldiers" of the 1st Battalion, stationed outside the town. When military investigations and a county grand jury failed to establish the identity of the riders, Company B, C, and D of the 1st Battalion were assembled and the guilty parties asked to step forward or the entire Battalion would be discharged without honor. Maintaining their innocence, the men stood fast and were thereafter discharged without honor. Subsequent courts of inquiry failed to recommend remedial action, and relief legislation introduced on behalf of various individuals was never enacted. An internal Army review of administrative and judicial policies brought this instance of mass punishment to the attention of the Secretary of the Army Froehlke. Although the practice has been occasionally invoked under extreme circumstances during frontier times, it has been contrary to the Army policy for decade. At the time the Secretary of the Army corrected the injudicious handling of the Brownsville incident by awarding an honorable discharge to the men of the 1st Battalion, only one survivor remained. b. It was not until 27 November 1972, the Secretary of the Army approved 2,012 race relations and equal opportunity staff positions for brigade or higher levels. Such staffing extended to the top levels of the Department of the Army and included a general officer position in the Office of Equal Opportunity. In 1973, members in basic training and service schools were required to take 4 hours of instruction. The Racial Awareness Program (RAP) was for units with the focus of improving interracial communication and promoting racial harmony. Mandatory seminars were required annually in every Army unit and included other activities like cultural awareness groups, and observance on special events significant to minority groups, and racial and cross-cultural exhibits. c. Desegregation continued to be challenging and in 1987, the Secretary of the Army directed the U.S. Army Center of Military History undertake a study on the subject, which resulted in the publication of Black Soldier, White Army, surrounding the performance of this regiment in Korea, ending with its disbandment on 1 October 1951. The result of the study clearly suggested that what happened to the 24th Infantry in Korea was a product of injustices that inflicted black Americans prior to the formal integration of the Army. Until recent, historians have tended to interpret the regiment's performance without recognizing those prejudices and corrosive effects they had on unit cohesion. In its centuries of existence, it can be said that gradually the Army has been more accommodating to a wider variety of divergent elements of society and is has become more reflective of the society it services. Studies continue to be conducted and policy refined. It has gone so far as to see diversity in a positive manner and greater diversity as a goal that should be encouraged. 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. AR 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed the procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. It provides: a. An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier'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 13 applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability. (1) Paragraph 13-4c provided separation for unsuitability for apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively. While lack of appropriate interest or other defective attitudes may be manifested in conjunction with physical defects, or mental, or organic diseases, including psychoneurosis, these traits are not necessarily produced by the physical or disease process. On the other hand, members considered for elimination may attempt to excuse immature, in adequate, and undisciplined behavior on the basis of minor or non- disabling illnesses. The presence of a physical or mental disease or defect-producing impairment of function insufficient to warrant separation under the provisions of AR 635- 40 (Personnel Separations –– Disability Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) and related regulations is no bar to discharge for unsuitability. (2) Paragraph 13-4(1) provided members who have successfully completed basic training or 8 weeks of one station training, but have not completed their military service obligation, will be released from active duty and transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve to complete their service obligation. (3) When separation for unsuitability was warranted the Soldier would receive an honorable or general discharge in accordance with his military record. d. A medical examination and mental status evaluation were required for Soldiers separated under chapter 13. e. Paragraph 5-3 (Secretarial Authority), states, in pertinent part, that the separation of enlisted personnel is the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army and will be effected only by his authority. Except as delegated by these regulations or by special Department of the Army directives, the discharge or release of any enlisted member of the Army for the convenience of the Government will be at the Secretary’s discretion and with the type of discharge as determined by him. Such authority may be given either in an individual case or by an order applicable to all cases specified in such orders. 3. AR 635-5-1 (Personnel Separations – Separation Program Designators), in effect at the time, prescribed the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives) and reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It provides SPD Code "LMJ" is designated as the code for Authority: AR 635-200, paragraph 13-4c(1) and Reason: "Unsuitability –– apathy, defective attitudes, or inability to expand effort constructively." 4. 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// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210008901 1 ARMY BOARD FOR THE CORRECTIONS OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1