IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 August 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210015379 APPLICANT’S REQUEST: The applicant requests, in effect, the upgrade to honorable of his general discharge under honorable conditions (as granted by the Department of Defense’s Special Discharge Review Board (SDRP), but not affirmed by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB)). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim) * Letter from applicant’s doctor (Colonel (COL) (Retired), with chronology * VA Letter, date 27 February 2008 and previously submitted with AR20080007277, showing handwritten notes added to the back * VA Medical records dated between 1998 and 1999 * Department of Social and Health Services Form for Psychological/Psychiatric Evaluation * VA letter, dated 11 October 1999 FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records, as were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20080007277, on 8 July 2008. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he would like the Board to conduct a review of his discharge so that he can gain eligibility for full VA benefits. He offers two self-authored statements, in which he describes what he asserts was biased treatment by his commander, and details about some of the traumatic events to which he was exposed while in Vietnam. a. From his entry on active duty until May 1968, the applicant always received ratings of “Excellent” for conduct and “Good” for efficiency. (1) In 1968, while in Vietnam, the applicant’s company commander asked him and his platoon sergeant to assist an EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) detachment with cleaning up an ammunition dump; they both declined. Shortly thereafter, the ammunition dump blew up, killing 10 EOD Soldiers. (2) After this incident, the company commander singled out the applicant for such punishments as cleaning latrines, burning waste containers, and working on kitchen police; by contrast, the platoon sergeant suffered no negative consequences. Throughout the remainder of his time in Vietnam, the company commander would not let the applicant perform his normal duties. (3) Upon his return to the U.S., the applicant’s chain of command denied his requests to return to Vietnam; the applicant told his leadership, if he could not go back to combat, he wanted out of the Army. The applicant’s first sergeant (1SG) told him he could get the applicant out of the Army with an undesirable discharge, but the 1SG never disclosed the ramifications of such a separation. b. The applicant gives details of five traumatic incidents: * During the Battle of Qui Nhon, in 1968, the applicant witnessed the Army napalm two companies of Viet Cong Soldiers; the images of the burned bodies are something he will never forget * Also, during the Battle of Qui Nhon, and while on a “suicide run” from Qui Nhon to Firebase Uplift, the applicant saw an Armored Personnel Carrier run over a Vietnamese woman’s head with gruesome results * While in ?ông Hà for dental work, the applicant accidently walked into a morgue and saw stacks of bodies in various states of decay, along with some missing body parts; the scene horrified the applicant * Close to New Year’s Eve, during the 1968 Tet Offensive, the applicant recalls turning off Highway 1, and heading toward Landing Zone (LZ) Sharon; there he saw over 1,000 bodies stacked on top of one another, 6 or 7 bodies deep; the stench was overpowering * When the applicant returned him, his own father called him a “war-mongering baby killer”; people spat on the applicant and called him a “cry baby”; this affected the applicant deeply and caused him not to trust anyone, or to seek help for his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 3. The applicant’s service records show: a. On 30 December 1966, after obtaining his parents’ permission, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Army for 3 years; he was 17 years old. Upon completion of basic combat training (BCT) at Fort Lewis, WA, orders transferred the applicant to Fort Ord, CA for advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B (Wheeled Vehicle Repairer). The applicant was to report to Fort Ord, on or about 13 April 1967; however, when the applicant did not arrive, his AIT unit reported him as absent without leave (AWOL). On 16 April 1967, the applicant returned to military control. b. On 24 April 1967, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for having been AWOL, from 13 until 16 April 1967 (4 days). On 22 May 1967, the applicant moved to another company at Fort Ord to begin on-the-job training (OJT) in MOS 94B (Cook); in or around July 1967, he completed OJT and received orders for Vietnam. On 7 August 1967, the applicant arrived at his unit in Vietnam (61st Transportation Company) to serve as a cook. c. At some point prior to 12 September 1967, the applicant’s leadership promoted him to private first class (PFC)/E-3. On 23 September 1967, the applicant accepted NJP for leaving his guard post, on 12 September 1967, without first obtaining proper relief. On 25 October 1967, intra-theater orders transferred the applicant to the 184th Ordnance Battalion, where, initially, the applicant served as a driver; he later performed security guard duties until, on 11 February 1968, the application returned to the 61st Transportation Company to continue working as a cook. d. On 9 July 1968, consistent with the applicant’s plea, a special court-martial found the applicant guilty of communicating a threat to kill Captain (CPT); the court sentenced the applicant to forfeit $79 per month for 6 months and reduced him to private (PV1)/E- 1. On 1 August 1968, the applicant completed his tour in Vietnam and orders reassigned him to Fort Leonard Wood, MO; he arrived at his new unit, a company within the U.S. Army Training Command, where he served as a heavy vehicle driver. e. On 21 January 1969, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to obey his 1SG’s order to get a haircut, and for appearing two days later in the company area in an unclean uniform and in need of a haircut. f. On 3 February 1969, the applicant’s company commander requested the supporting Mental Hygiene Consultation Division to conduct a psychiatric evaluation of the applicant. The commander described the applicant’s behavior as “totally unsatisfactory.” The commander stated the applicant appeared obsessed with the idea that everyone was picking on him; he had to be repeatedly told to get a haircut, and he was prone to lying his way out of any infractions he committed. Further, the applicant resented authority, reacted to orders as though they were punishment, continuously failed to report for duty, and talked back to his superiors. g. On 14 February 1969, an Army medical officer completed a psychiatric evaluation of the applicant; the medical officer found no psychiatric disorder. During the interview of the applicant, the applicant said he wanted “out of the Army on his own terms, on the basis of his feelings and personal comforts.” The medical officer opined, “There is a question whether he will Soldier, but it is the opinion of this examiner that a further trial of duty is indicated.” The medical officer cleared the applicant for any administrative decision the command deemed appropriate. h. On 20 February 1969, the applicant’s commander advised him, in a memorandum, that he was recommending the applicant for discharge, per Army Regulation (AR) 635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability); he based his action on the applicant’s disregard for authority. On 20 February 1969, the commander rendered his recommendation for the applicant’s separation, and he requested the waiver of any further counseling and rehabilitative efforts. The commander stated the applicant had already been counseled with no effect; additionally, the applicant was a habitual shirker and self-admitted marijuana addict who was unkempt, belligerent, and resistant to all attempts at rehabilitation. i. On or about 25 February 1969, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged counsel has advised him of the basis for his separation action; the applicant elected to waive the right to have his case considered by, and to appear with counsel before a board of officers. In addition, the applicant waived his right to counsel and chose not to submit statements in his own behalf. j. On 1 March 1969, the applicant’s Fort Leonard Wood unit reported him as AWOL; he returned to military control, on 4 March 1969 after a 4-day absence. k. On 26 March 1969, the separation authority approved the commander’s separation recommendation and directed the applicant’s undesirable discharge under other than honorable conditions; on 28 March 1969, orders discharged the applicant accordingly. (1) The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he completed 2 years, 2 months, and 24 days of his 3-year enlistment contract with two periods of lost time (13 through 16 April 1967 and 1 through 3 March 1969). Item 11c (Reason and Authority) states, “AR 635-212 SPN (separation program number) 28B (Unfitness – Frequent Involvement in Incidents of a Discreditable Nature with Civil or Military Authorities). (2) Item 22c (Statement of Service Foreign and/or Sea Service) indicates the applicant had served in Vietnam for 1 year and 1 day. Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) lists the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960), two overseas service ribbons, and a marksmanship qualification badge. l. On 10 July 1977, the applicant requested a review of his discharge by the SDRP, stating extenuating and mitigating circumstances had surrounded his adverse separation; he enclosed supporting documents, but those documents are unavailable for review. On 27 September 1977, an SDRP convened and conducted a records review. (1) The SDRP found that, at the time of his entry on active duty, the applicant was 17 years old and had a 10th grade education; additionally, his aptitude scores were in the lower mental category. While the board could not determine whether the foregoing factors played a role in the applicant’s problems, it did note that the applicant completed BCT, AIT, and was serving in Vietnam before he committed any serious acts of indiscipline. (2) The board concluded the Army had properly separated the applicant, but because the applicant met two of the SDRP’s primary criteria, the board unanimously voted to grant partial relief, in the form of a general discharge under honorable conditions. The board’s presiding officer stated that the seriousness of the applicant’s threat to kill a commissioned officer negated any consideration of an honorable character of service. (3) On 8 November 1977, the Office of the Adjutant General and The Adjutant General Center issued the applicant a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) reflecting a general discharge under honorable conditions. m. On 8 June 1978, the ADRB conducted a records review to determine whether the applicant’s general discharge, as granted by the SDRP, should be affirmed; (affirming the applicant’s amended character of service would have resulted in the applicant gaining eligibility for Veterans’ benefits from the VA). The ADRB voted not to affirm the applicant’s general discharge under honorable conditions because of the applicant’s NJPs, his 7-day period of lost time, and his special court-martial conviction for threatening to kill a commissioned officer. n. In April 2008, the applicant applied to the ABCMR, requesting, in effect, to affirm the upgraded character of service granted by the SDRP. (1) The applicant argued he was psychiatrically impaired when he committed the misconduct that led to his discharge; he provided a letter, signed by both a VA psychiatrist and a clinical social worker, which stated the applicant was being actively treated for PTSD, and that the applicant’s behavioral health issues had resulted from trauma incurred while in Vietnam. (2) On 8 July 2008, the Board voted to deny relief; it noted that, despite the applicant’s evidence showing treatment for PTSD, the applicant’s available record failed to show he was suffering from PTSD while still on active duty. In addition, while taking the applicant’s Vietnam service into consideration, the Board found the evidence insufficient to warrant relief. o. The applicant submits a letter, dated 10 July 2021 and prepared by a retired Army medical officer, COL. (1) The doctor describes the applicant personal history prior to his entry on active duty and offers details of traumatic events that occurred during the applicant’s Vietnam service. * Although the applicant’s primary MOS was 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman), his leadership assigned him to truck driving duties; the applicant found himself driving a resupply truck with fuel and ammunition with no escorts * The applicant had multiple terrifying experiences while having to stay at Firebase Uplift, so named because the Viet Cong constantly shelled the firebase; at one point, he was pinned down for 70 days due to constant enemy bombardment * The applicant experiences several near-misses, which caused him a lot of anxiety; he was also close to an ammunition dump that exploded and, after just 4-months’ in-country, a 2 1/2 ton vehicle struck him and may have caused a concussion (2) The doctor offered the applicant’s version of events surrounding his special court-martial. (a) After 9 months in Vietnam, a CPT ordered the applicant to guard an ammunition storage area; at the time, the applicant was working in sanitation. U.S. Marines had previously advised the applicant, “do not go down the pipeline at night; your command will try to send you, but, if they do, you will come back in a body bag.” (b) When the CPT ordered the applicant down the pipeline, the applicant tried to explain what the Marines had said, but the CPT ignored him. When the CPT persisted, and an altercation ensued; during this altercation, the applicant “respectfully explained why he and his platoon sergeant refused the assignment.” Shortly thereafter, the ammunition storage area exploded; had the applicant and his platoon sergeant obeyed the CPT’s order, both would have been killed. (c) Following the ammunition site explosion, the CPT continued to press the matter, asserting the applicant should have obeyed his orders; the CPT had the applicant placed under house arrest and then court-martialed upon the applicant’s return to the United States. (3) The doctor provided a chronology of the applicant’s efforts, post-service, to obtain an upgraded character of service and treatment for his PTSD. p. On 29 September 2021, the applicant requested the assistance of his United States Senator. He told his senator that he required an upgraded character of service because he was homeless and in a bad situation. 4. Clemency guidance to the Boards for Correction of Military/Navy Records (BCM/NR) does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority to ensure each case will be assessed on its own merits. In determining whether to grant relief 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. This includes consideration of changes in policy, whereby a service member under the same circumstances today would reasonably be expected to receive a more favorable outcome. a. During the applicant's era of service, commanders could separate Soldiers, under the provisions of AR 635-212, for unfitness based on having had frequent incidents of a discreditable nature that involved military authorities. Separation authorities normally issued these Soldiers an under other than honorable conditions character of service but, in cases where the Soldier had been awarded a personal decoration or the Soldier's particular circumstances so warranted, the separation authority could award an honorable or a general discharge under honorable conditions. b. The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgraded characters of service solely to make the applicant eligible for Veterans' benefits; however, in reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition, his arguments and assertions, and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency guidance. 5. In March 1977, the Department of Defense announced it was initiating SDRP boards; these boards were to be conducted by the ADRB. a. The SDRP was the second of two major Federal programs intended to address character of service issues pertaining to Vietnam-era deserters (the first had been the Ford Clemency Program (in effect from September 1974 to March 1975)); the Army convened SDRP boards from April until September 1977. b. SDRP boards permitted former Soldiers with general and undesirable discharge certificates that had been issued between 4 August 1964 and 28 March 1973 to apply for a simplified review of their discharges under liberalized standards. Considered factors included age, length of service at the time of discharge, and any personal distress that could have contributed to the misconduct that resulted in the discharge. The board also considered any combat-related awards received, and record of good citizenship since discharge. c. In October 1977, Congress enacted Public Law 95-126; this law denied the automatic entitlement to VA benefits for those Vietnam-era Veterans who, due to administrative upgrade programs such as the SDRP, would otherwise have become so entitled. In addition, the law stipulated VA benefits would only be granted when, on a case-by-case basis, the ADRB affirmed the SDRP upgrades. As a result, those former Soldiers who received SDRP-upgraded characters of service, but were not granted ADRB affirmation, remained ineligible for health and other benefits from the VA. 6. Published guidance to the BCM/NRs clearly indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 7. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. 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 during his time in service. b. 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) was also reviewed. The military electronic medical record (AHLTA) was not reviewed as it was not in use during his time in service. No hard copy military medical records or civilian medical documentation was provided for review. c. Review of the applicant’s military documentation indicates that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 Dec 1966. While on active duty, he was deployed overseas to Vietnam from 01 Aug 1967 - 01 Aug 1968. During his time in service, his awards included the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Republic of Vietnam Commendation Medal w/DVC 1960 and 2 O/S Bars. His job positions included Cook and Heavy Vehicle Driver. He received Article 15’s for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 13-16 Apr 1967., leaving his post prior to being relieved (12 Sep 1967), disobeying an order/appearing unkempt in AO (18, 20 Jan 1969). A Record of Special Court Martial found him guilty for “wrongfully communicated to CPT…a threat to kill him” on 29 May 1968. A notification of Elimination Proceedings was initiated by his commander (20 Feb 1969) due to unfitness and “based upon your disregard for authority.” d. He received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge on 31 Mar 1069 with DD-214 Authority and Reason, AR 635-212, SPN 28B. This was subsequently upgraded to Other Honorable Conditions (General) discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board (20 Oct 1977). e. His commander referred him for a Mental Hygiene Consultation (11 Feb 1968) noting, “he seems obsessed by the idea that people are picking on him. His uniform is always sloppy, he must repeatedly be told to get a haircut and he is prone to attempt to lie his way out of all infractions he commits. He resents authority and seems to react to orders as though they were punishment.” A Report of Psychiatric Evaluation (14 Feb 1969) indicated an absence of a psychiatric disorder. The Army psychiatrist noted, “this EM wants out of the Army on his own terms on the basis of his feelings and personal comforts. There is a question whether he will soldier, but it is the opinion of this examiner that a further trial of duty is indicated.” f. Supporting documentation included a letter from a retired COL who noted, “I treated many service members with similar issues and problem during my many years of commissioned service in the US Army Medical Corps prior to my retirement as Chief, Department of Psychiatry, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma in 2004. I recommend status should be upgraded to at least a General Discharge and thus eligible to receive treatment and compensation for his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). His PTSD is well documented and evidenced by his direct exposure to actual serious injury, by his direct exposure to ordinance and blast injuries during his time in Vietnam, intrusive symptoms of recurrent, involuntary and intrusive memories, nightmares, dissociative reactions and intense stress after exposure to the traumatic memories noted above.” The VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) did not indicate any service-connected disability(s). A Psychiatry Care Note (02 Apr 2008) indicated, “Living now in motor home in woods near, remains highly isolated. Clean clothes, showering. Working on getting teeth and glasses. Full range of PTSD sx. Restarted fluoxetine and increased 40 mg QAM without difficulty. Reports improved mood, decreased anxiety/irritability, increased coping ability…Provided supportive therapy around issues concerning coping with PTSD sx.” The psychiatrist diagnosed him with Chronic PTSD, noting that he was markedly isolated from others. The Problem List included Chronic Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (24 Feb 2022), Financially poor (24 Feb 2022), Economic problem (02 Apr 2008) and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Chronic (17 Jan 2008). g. Based on the available information and in accordance with the Liberal Consideration guidance, it is the opinion of the Agency psychologist that the applicant has a partially mitigating Behavioral Health condition, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This applies in particular to his disrespectful actions, disobedient behavior, leaving his post, unkempt appearance and substandard performance. As there is an association between Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and resistant, negative attitudes toward authority figures, there is a nexus between his symptoms and the disrespectful/disobedient behavior he demonstrated. In addition, as there is an association between PTSD and avoidant behavior, there is a nexus between applicant’s diagnosis of PTSD and his absences/neglectful performance (including personal grooming) from his unit and required duty functions primarily during and after his service in Vietnam. Chronological review of his military career indicates a dramatic change in the applicant’s motivation, temperament and level of instability occurred during his time in service. Such a radical change in behavior is consistent with the behavioral changes seen in soldiers who develop PTSD in a combat environment. However, the purposeful act of threatening to kill an officer, even if unintended, is not part of the natural history or sequelae of PTSD and, as such, is not mitigated under Liberal Consideration. His brief AWOL episode (Apr 1967) prior to his deployment to Vietnam is also not mitigated, as it occurred prior to combat trauma. h. Regarding the Kurta questions, the applicant did have a condition that may excuse or mitigate the discharge (i.e. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder). The PTSD condition did exist and the traumatic events occurred during military service. Finally, the PTSD condition actually does excuse or mitigate the discharge – PTSD partially mitigates for his offenses, particularly disrespectful attitude/actions, disobedient behavior, leaving his post, unkempt appearance and substandard performance. However, PTSD does not mitigate for his lethal threat to an officer and his AWOL episode prior to Vietnam deployment. A discharge upgrade is encouraged when the totality of his chronic PTSD symptoms are considered alongside the kind of misconduct he exhibited. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, to include the DoD guidance on liberal consideration when reviewing discharge upgrade requests, the Board determined relief was not warranted. Based upon the short term of honorable service completed, the seriousness of the misconduct involved and only partial mitigation for the misconduct being found, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant a change to the applicant’s characterization of service. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. 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. 2. Prior to closing the case, the Board did note the administrative notes below from the analyst of record and recommended those changes be completed to more accurately reflect the military service of the applicant. 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): 1. AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for the preparation of the DD Form 214. a. Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) was to list awards and decorations. b. Although not initially required, a subsequent change to the regulation, which took effect in March 1972, mandated the DD Form 214 include the following comment: Vietnam – (inclusive dates), Indochina – Yes, Korea – No. 2. AR 600-8-22 states a bronze service star will be awarded for wear on the Vietnam Service Medal for participation in each campaign. Recognized campaigns for Vietnam include: * Counteroffensive-Phase III (1 June 1967 to 29 January 1968) * Tet Counteroffensive (30 January 1968 to 1 April 1968) * Counteroffensive- Phase IV (2 April 1968 to 30 June 1968) * Counteroffensive- Phase V (1 July 1968 to 1 November 1968) 3. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) shows: a. Department of the Army General Orders (DAGO) Number 31, dated 1969, awarded the Meritorious Unit Commendation to the184th Ordnance Battalion for the period 1 May 1967 to 30 April 1968. b. All units in Vietnam were awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation based on DAGO Number 8, dated 1974. 4. Based on the foregoing, amend the applicant's DD Form 214, ending , as follows: a. Delete the Vietnam Service Medal and add the following: * Vietnam Service Medal with 4 bronze service stars * Meritorious Unit Commendation * Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation b. Add the following comment to the remarks section: "Vietnam – 19670801- 19680801, Indochina – Yes, Korea – No." REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, United State Code, section 1556 (Ex Parte Communications Prohibited) provides the Secretary of the Army shall ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by ARBA is provided a copy of all correspondence and communications, including summaries of verbal communications, with any agencies or persons external to agency or board, or a member of the staff of the agency or Board, that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute. 2. AR 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separating enlisted personnel for reasons of unfitness or unsuitability. Paragraph 6 (Applicability) stated Soldiers were subject to separation for unfitness under the provisions of this regulation when they were involved in such misconduct as frequent acts of a discreditable nature. Separation authorities normally issued an undesirable discharge to Soldiers separated for unfitness, but they could grant an honorable or a general discharge under honorable conditions when warranted. 3. AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for enlisted administrative separations. a. Paragraph 1-9d (Honorable Discharge). An honorable discharge was a separation with honor; commanders issued an honorable discharge certificate based on the Soldier's proper military behavior and proficient duty performance. Separation authorities could characterize a Soldier's service as honorable if he/she received at least "Good" for conduct, and at least "Fair" for efficiency. In addition, the Soldier could have no general court-martial convictions or more than one special court-martial conviction. b. Paragraph 1-9e (General Discharge) stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions, where the Soldier's military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 4. In March 1977, the Department of Defense announced it was initiating SDRP boards; they were to be conducted by the ADRB. a. The SDRP was the second of two major Federal programs intended to address character of service issues pertaining to Vietnam-era deserters (the first had been the Ford Clemency Program (in effect from September 1974 to March 1975)). The ADRB convened SDRP boards from April to September 1977. b. SDRP boards permitted former Soldiers with general and undesirable discharge certificates, issued between 4 August 1964 and 28 March 1973, to apply for a simplified review of their discharges under liberalized standards. Considered factors included age, length of service at the time of discharge, and any personal distress that could have contributed to the misconduct that resulted in the discharge. The board also considered any combat-related awards received, and record of good citizenship since discharge. c. In October 1977, Congress enacted Public Law 95-126; this law denied the automatic entitlement to VA benefits for those Vietnam-era Veterans who, due to administrative upgrade programs such as the SDRP, would otherwise have become so entitled. In addition, the law stipulated VA benefits would only be granted when, on a case-by-case basis, the ADRB affirmed the SDRP upgrades. As a result, those former Soldiers who received SDRP-upgraded characters of service, but were not granted ADRB affirmation, remained ineligible for health and other benefits from the VA. 5. 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; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part to 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. 6. On 25?July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military DRBs and BCM/NRs regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. 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) AR20210015379 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210015379 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210015379 1