IN THE CASE OF:  

BOARD DATE:  1 February 2022

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20210011275


APPLICANT REQUESTS: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) 
discharge be upgraded to an honorable 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), dated 24 February 2021, with personal statement 
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the 
period ending 28 June 2000
*	DA Form 4980-5 (Bronze Star Medal Certificate), for the period 10 August 2005 
to 1 August 2006
*	DD Form 214, for the period ending 7 November 2008
*	DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge 
from Active Duty), dated 12 March 2009
*	medical record problem list, printed on 28 September 2017
*	Arizona Department of Public Safe, issuance of Level One Fingerprint Clearance 
Card, dated 26 March 2018
*	Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Certificate of Completion, Outpatient 
Substance Abuse Program, dated 20 September 
*	, Report of Illness or Physical Disability, dated 14 October 2017
*	Article, Mental Health Illnesses and Discharges by Peggy McCarthy, undated
*	VA Readjustment Counseling Service Treatment, dated 12 March 2021
*	Privacy Act Release Form from the Office of U.S. House of Representatives, 
dated 28 August 2021
*	Inquiry from the Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, dated 
30 August 2021

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. 
Code (USC), Section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military 
Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in 
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 
2.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter wherein he states:

	a.  He is applying to have his discharge characterization changed from UOTHC to 
honorable.  He is requesting this change because he feels there are new and important 
details concerning the legality of his initial discharge.  In 2008, he received a UOTHC 
discharge after he agreed to an unqualified resignation, in lieu of a trial by court martial. 
The events leading up to that decision have haunted him since.  During his second 
deployment, he knowingly violated his oath as an officer and signed his commander's 
signature when trying to reconcile purchases made using overseas field ordering funds. 

	b.  It was reckless then, and remains a reckless and ill-conceived action on his part. 
However, after several years of careful consideration, it remains evident perhaps the 
U.S. Army and his chain of command were wrong to have him in that position due to his 
(at the time) undiagnosed and untreated post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which 
he contracted after his first deployment.  Furthermore, it is more than possible the 
military at large failed to follow policies designed to prevent inappropriate discharges of 
service members with PTSD or traumatic brain injury (TBI).  Had he received the care 
and treatment he needed for his condition, he would not have made the ill-fated 
decisions he made, effectively killing his military career.  Lastly, it is extremely important 
for the future of his civilian career. 

	c.  As a former officer, he is subject to Title 38, U.S. Code, Section 5503, which 
provides that a release or discharge by resignation of an officer, for the good of the 
service, constitutes a statutory bar to benefits; and VA Regulation 38 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), Section 3.12(d), which provides that a service member's discharge 
category will be under dishonorable conditions if accepted to escape trial by general 
court-martial.  Until he can remove these stigmas, he is limited in his resources and 
capacity to move past this unfortunate incident.

3.  On his DD Form 293, the applicant notes post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is 
related to his request, as a contributing and mitigating factor in the circumstances that 
resulted in his separation.

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 January 1998 and was honorably 
discharged on 28 June 2000 to enter the U.S. Military Academy.

5.  The applicant was commissioned on 29 May 2004, as a second lieutenant in the 
Infantry branch, at West Point, NY. He served in Iraq from 25 September 2005 through 
24 July 2006.  He was promoted to captain (CPT)/O-3 on 1 July 2007.  He redeployed 
to Iraq in the February 2008 timeframe.

6.  Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 23 August 2008 for 
violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  His DD Form 458 (Charge 
Sheet) shows he was charged with:
	Charge I:  Violating Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); 
specifically, willfully disobeying a lawful order, on or about 26 April 2008.

	Charge II:  Violating Article 92 of the UCMJ; specifically, being derelict in the 
performance of his duties by failing to purchase only authorized items with Field 
Ordering Officer (FOO) funds, as it was his duty to do, using FOO funds to purchase the 
following unauthorized items; Oakley eyewear, weightlifting gloves, wrist computers, 
navigation watches, earbud headphones, and phone calling cards, of a value of 
approximately $6,788.51, on or about 23 March 2008 to on or about 30 July 2008, near 
Forward Operating Base Warrior, Iraq.

	Charge III:  Violating Article 123 of the UCMJ; specifically, at or near Forward 
Operating Base Warrior, Iraq on or about 30 July 2008, with intent to defraud, utter 
certain writing, to wit:

		(1)  Memorandum for 1AD Resource Management, Subject: Justification for 
purchase of Leatherman Tool, dated 30 July 2008;

		(2)  Memorandum for Contracting Approval Office, Subject: JCC Approval for 
items already purchased (Leatherman Tool-JCC pin number W91GF908JE001), dated  
30 July 2008;

		(3)  Memorandum for Contracting Approval Office, Subject: JCC Approval for 
items already purchased (Ballistic Eye Pro-JCC pin number W91GF908JE002), dated  
30 July 2008;

		(4)  Memorandum for Contracting Approval Office, Subject: Justification for 
purchase of Leatherman Tool, dated 30 July 2008;

		(5)  Memorandum for Contracting Approval Office, Subject: JCC Approval for 
items already purchased (Leatherman Tool-JCC pin number W91GF908JE003), dated  
30 July 2008;

		(6)  Memorandum for 1AD Resource Management, Subject: Justification for 
purchase of Leatherman Tool, dated 30 July 2008;

		(7)  Memorandum for Contracting Approval Office, Subject: JCC Approval for 
items already purchased (Leatherman Tool-JCC pin number W91GF908JE004), dated  
30 July 2008;

		(8)  Memorandum for 1AD Resource Management, Subject: Justification for 
purchase of Leatherman Tool, dated 30 July 2008;

		(9)  Memorandum for Contracting Approval Office, Subject: JCC Approval for 
items already purchased (Leatherman Tool-JCC pin number W91GF908JE006), dated  
30 July 2008;

		(10)  Memorandum for Contracting Approval Office, Subject: JCC Approval for 
items already purchased (Headphones-JCC pin number W91GF908JE007), dated 30 
July 2008;

		(11)  Memorandum for Contracting Approval Office, Subject: JCC Approval for 
items already purchased (Refrigerator and Microwave-JCC pin number 
W91GF908JE010), dated 30 July 2008;

	Writing which would, if genuine, apparently operate to the legal harm of another, the 
signature to which said writings was, as he, the said applicant, then well knew, falsely 
made and which was used to the legal harm of Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) , in that 
Leatherman tool, Ballistic eye protection, headphones, a refrigerator, and a microwave, 
were unlawfully purchased with FOO funds.

	Charge IV: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 133, specifically at or near Forward 
Operating Base Warrior, Iraq, on several occasions, wrongfully and dishonorably use 
FOO funds to purchase unauthorized items: Oakley eyewear, weightlifting gloves, wrist 
computers, navigation watches, earbud headphones, and phone calling cards, of a 
value of approximately $6,788.51, from on or about 23 March 2008 to on or about  
30 July 2008.

7.  The applicant submitted a memorandum of resignation on 6 September 2008, in Lieu 
of Trial by Court-Martial, in which he stated: 

	a.  He accepts full responsibility for his actions. No amount of time will ever erase 
the shame and disgrace he have brought upon himself, his commander and his brigade. 
He managed to undo eleven years of commendable service to his nation and for that he 
will live a lifetime full of regret. However, he did not regret his decision to turn himself in. 
Despite his failures and poor decision, he hope this would allow him to recover some 
since of honor and integrity.

	b.  His decision to wear the Army uniform stretches all the way back to January 
1998. He left home at the age of twenty as an enlisted recruit ready for Army Basic 
Training. After a tour of duty at Fort Stewart, GA his chain of command felt that he 
distinguished himself ahead of his peers and recommended him for the West Point 
Program. It was his time as a cadet where he learned the value of honor, loyalty and 
commitment. It was his dream to fulfill his obligation with a lifetime commitment to his 
country. He chose infantry because he knew that with the escalating global war on 
terror, that branch would offer the best avenues in which to improve on his leadership 
abilities. He now has two tours in support of Operation Iraq Freedom and was awarded 
the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service as a weapons platoon leader.

	c.  He will make no excuses for his actions. The decision to violate his Commanders 
faith and trust was his own. However, He feels it is important to offer the mitigating 
circumstances surrounding his actions because he is not a malicious deviate bent on 
disrupting the good order and discipline of the unit. He is quite the contrary. He had just 
returned from his environmental morale leave where he traveled to Washington State to 
visit his fiancé. On his first day home he discovered that she had been having an affair, 
and she tried to keep it a secret. His world was rocked. He gave everything he had to 
offer and vowed to ensure they would be happy forever. He was mistaken, and the grief 
it caused his mind to be subjected to bitter torment. She moves out of our apartment 
shortly thereafter, and he spent the rest of his leave wallowing over a broken heart. Hid 
eighteen days of rest and relaxation was miserable.

	d.  When he returned to Iraq his mind and emotions were still note centered, and he 
found himself lashing out at friends and members of his team. The day after he 
returned, he found himself facing the daunting task of explaining himself to his 
command unit about why his paperwork was in disarray. This is when he decided to 
stray from the right path and began his journey into his current predicament. After 
several counseling sessions with his trusted friend and Chaplain he began to feel better 
and certain that he had wo own up to his actions. Furthermore, he had compounded hi 
grief, guilt and remorse over his decision to violate his Commander’s trust.

	e.  Although his career as an officer is finished he feel that he dedicated his entire 
being to the profession of arms. His future is now uncertain and he no longer have the 
security he once knew. Until this, his career was right on track for a company 
commander as further advancement in the Army. His Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) 
have been excellent and his record have been untarnished until now. He can only say 
that he has learned a powerful lesson, and hope to take that lesson with him into his 
next endeavor. For these reasons he humbly and respectfully requests that his chain of 
command recommend that he receive a general discharge.

8.  The applicant was dismissed on 7 November 2008, under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraph 3-13, due to a 
court-martial with an under other than honorable characterization of service.  His  
DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he had 
completed four years, five months, and 10 days of creditable active service.  His  
DD Form 214 further shows he was awarded or authorized the Iraq Campaign Medal 
with two bronze service stars.


9.  The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade 
to his service characterization. The ADRB considered his request on 17 September 
2010, determined he was properly discharged, and denied his request for relief. 

10.  The applicant provides:

	a.  Medical problem list printed on 28 September 2017 which shows a diagnosis of 
substance abuse, recorded on 27 July 2012, PTSD, recorded on 14 May 2013.

	b.  Certificate of completion from the VA outpatient substance abuse program given 
on 20 September 2017

	c.  Report of Illness or Physical Disability, which shows he has been receiving 
treatment for his PTSD beginning on an unspecified date

	d.  Article on mental health illnesses and discharges, by 

	e.  Letter from the VA, readjustment counseling services, dated 12 March 2021. His 
mental health counseling therapist states, that the applicant on 7 December 2017 
volunteered for individual counseling. He has consistently attended counseling, which 
includes cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) concepts used as a sequence approach to 
address his PTSD service-connected disability which he states is due to his combat 
trauma experienced while serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

11.  The Board should consider the applicant's evidence in accordance with the 
published equity, injustice, and clemency determination guidance.  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 post-traumatic 
stress disorder (PTSD).  The Veteran’s testimony alone, oral or written, may establish 
the existence of a condition or experience, that the condition or experience may have 
existed during or might have been aggravated by military service, and that the condition 
or experience may excuse or mitigate the discharge.

12.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting discharge upgrade contending that 
the misconduct leading to his Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was 
due to PTSD he developed while on active duty.
    a.  The Agency psychologist was asked by the ABCMR to review this request. 
Documentation reviewed includes the applicant’s completed DD149 and supporting 
documentation and his military separation packet. The VA electronic medical record, 
Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) and the military electronic medical record (AHLTA) were also 
reviewed. No hard copy military medical records or civilian medical documentation was 
provided for review. 
    b.  Review of the applicant’s military documentation indicates that he enlisted as the 
Army Reserve (Delayed Entry Program) on 24 Nov 1997 and subsequently in the 
Regular Army on 05 Jan 1998. He received an Honorable discharge on 28 Jun 2000 
with DD-214 narrative reason for separation, To Enter Service Academy. He was 
commissioned as an officer on 29 May 2004. During his military career, he was 
deployed overseas to Iraq from 25 Sep 2005 - 24 Jul 2006. During his service, his 
awards included the Bronze Star Medal, National Defense Service Medal, and Iraq 
Campaign Medal with (2) Bronze Service Stars. His job position was as a Cannon 
Crewmember when enlisted and last position as an officer was Field Ordering Officer 
(FOO) in Iraq.  
 
    c.  His offenses included a Charge Sheet indicating that he disobeyed an order from 
the MAJ to “not purchase Oakley brand eyewear with his Field Ordering Officer (FOO) 
funds” (26 Apr 2008).  He also was charged with using FOO funds to purchase “other 
unauthorized items of approximately $6788.51 (23-30 Mar 2008), “intent to defraud, 
utter certain writings” with false signature of Battalion Commander (30 Jul 2008), and 
“dishonorably use…(FOO) funds to purchase unauthorized items” (i.e. approximately 
$6788.51). A Sworn Statement by LTC (Battalion Commander), dated 10 Aug 2008 
recalled, “he then explained to me 2 days ago he forged my signature on 8-10 
documents that had to be turned into the Contracting Office stating that I approved 
purchases he had made…He stated that he knew it was wrong as soon as he did it and 
it had been bothering him ever since. I then told him he was suspended from his duties 
with the MiTT team and to report to the XO.” He submitted a Resignation for the Good 
of the Service in Lieu of Court-Martial, dated 06 Sep 2008. He elaborated, “no amount 
of time will ever erase the shame and disgrace I have brought upon myself, my 
Commander and my Brigade.” He received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 
discharge on 07 Nov 2008 with DD-214 narrative reason for separation, In Lieu of Trial 
by Court Martial.
    d.  The military electronic medical record (AHLTA) did not contain any behavioral 
health related previous encounter notes. There was also an absence of behavioral 
health related problems or diagnoses on the Problem List. The VA electronic medical 
record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) did not indicate any service connected disability(s) A 
Mental Health Note, dated 19 May 2017 indicated, “Vet reported a hx of ETOH use 
beginning at age 16; with current use of ETOH 4-6 beers a night…Vet added that he 
can get angry and aggressive when he drinks…hx of DUI in 2009…Vet shared 
anniversary date (May 18th) of the death of good friend who died by IUD while deployed. 
Vet reported diminished nightmares to 1x a year; however hypervigilance, avoidance of 
conflict, crowds…and irritable mood.” The provider diagnosed him with “Unspecific 
Depression, PTSD, Alcohol Abuse.” The Problem List included Problems Related to 
Other Legal Circumstances (06 Sep 2017); Alcohol Abuse, Uncomplicated (16 Aug 
2017); Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Chronic (19 May 2017); and Other (or unknown) 
Substance Abuse (16 Jul 2021). 
 
    e.  Based on the information in the applicant’s medical record, it is the opinion of the 
Agency psychologist that there are no mitigating Behavioral Health conditions. 
Problems arising from PTSD often contribute to self-isolation, anger outbursts, 
aggressive behavior, intrusive memories, nightmares, interpersonal difficulties, poor 
sleep and self-medication with drugs/alcohol. Purchasing unauthorized items, intent to 
defraud with false signatures and forging a commander’s signature are not part of the 
natural history or sequelae of PTSD, or other behavioral health conditions, and, as 
such, are not mitigated under Liberal Consideration. 

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within 
the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully 
considered the applicants request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a 
medical advisory opinion and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of 
discharge upgrade requests. 

	a.  The Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service, the 
frequency and nature of his misconduct, and the reason for his separation. The Board 
considered the medical records, VA documents provided by the applicant and the 
review and conclusions of the advising official. A majority of the Board concurred with 
the medical advisory opinion finding insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors 
to overcome the misconduct. Purchasing unauthorized items, intent to defraud with 
false signatures and forging a commander’s signature are not part of the natural history 
or sequelae of PTSD, or other behavioral health conditions, and, as such, are not 
mitigated under Liberal Consideration. The applicant provided insufficient evidence of 
post-service achievements or letters of reference in support of a clemency 
determination. Based on a preponderance of evidence, a majority of the Board 
determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not 
in error or unjust. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the 
majority found that relief was not warranted.

	b.  The member in the minority found sufficient evidence to upgrade the character of 
service to general, under honorable conditions. The basis to grant the partial relief and 
upgrade him to general under honorable conditions was based on the total reading of 
his file, and considering the circumstances during the deployment. The Board member 
felt like the purchases he made were within the bounds of trying to make his 
circumstance, and perhaps that of his team members a little easier and could be 
construed as mission support in that sense. The Board member did not feel that he was 
acting with criminal intent. On that basis, the Board member felt that a clemency 
determination of general, under honorable conditions would be appropriate. This vote is  
independent of the medical considerations as the member does not dispute that 
assessment.  

BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:X	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	:X	:X	DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or 
injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient 
as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the 
Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.



REFERENCES:

1.  Title 10, 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 600-8-24 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel.  The version in effect at the time provided that:

	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.  Paragraph 3-9 established policy related to an officer's resignation for the good of 
the Service (RFGOS) in lieu of trial by general court-martial.  It provided that an officer 
may submit an RFGOS in lieu of trial by general court-martial under the following 
circumstances:

		(1)  Court-martial charges have been preferred against the officer with a view 
toward trial by GCM and until action by the convening authority on the findings and 
sentence in a case where the officer has been convicted. 

		(2)  When the convening authority in taking initial action on a sentence from a 
court-martial suspends an adjudged dismissal, the officer may submit a RFGOS during 
the period of suspension of the dismissal. 

		(3)  A decision by the DASA (RB) or higher authority to disapprove a RFGOS 
does not preclude the officer from submitting a subsequent RFGOS at any time prior to 
the initial action by the convening authority on a case or, in case of an approved but 
suspended sentence, to a dismissal during the period of suspension. b. The tender of a 
RFGOS does not preclude or suspend procedures. A convening authority will not, 
however, take action on the findings and sentence in such cases until SECARMY or 
designee has acted on the RFGOS. AR 600–8–24

3.  The Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRB) and 
Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR), on 3 September 
2014 [Hagel Memorandum], 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.  The Acting Principle Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) 
provided clarifying guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 24 February 
2016 [Carson Memorandum].  The memorandum directed the BCM/NRs to waive the 
statute of limitations.  Fairness and equity demand, in cases of such magnitude that a 
Veteran's petition receives full and fair review, even if brought outside of the time limit.  
Similarly, cases considered previously, either by DRBs or BCM/NRs, but without benefit 
of the application of the Supplemental Guidance, shall be, upon petition, granted de 
novo review utilizing the Supplemental Guidance.

5.  The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) provided clarifying 
guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 August 2017 [Kurta 
Memorandum].  The memorandum directed them to give liberal consideration 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 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.

	a.  Guidance documents are not limited to UOTHC discharge characterizations but 
rather apply to any petition seeking discharge relief including requests to change the 
narrative reason, re-enlistment codes, and upgrades from general to honorable 
characterizations.

	b.  An honorable discharge characterization does not require flawless military 
service.  Many veterans are separated with an honorable characterization despite some 
relatively minor or infrequent misconduct.

	c.  Liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade.  Relief may be appropriate, 
however, for minor misconduct commonly associated with mental health conditions, 
including PTSD; TBI; or behaviors commonly associated with sexual assault or sexual 
harassment; and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the 
facts and circumstances.

6.  The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) issued guidance to 
Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 July 2018 [Wilkie Memorandum], 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.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20210011275

1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

1