IN THE CASE OF:  

BOARD DATE:  16 March 2022

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20210015531


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  An upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions 
characterization of service to fully honorable, or in the alternative general, under 
honorable conditions.  Additionally, he requests a change of his narrative reason for 
separation from “for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial” to 
“Secretarial Authority.”  

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Veterans Consortium Applicant’s Attorneys Agreement
*	Brief in Support of Application
*	Applicant’s Personal Statement
*	Psychological Assessment, dated 4 February 2016
*	Rock Landing Psychological Group, dated 22 February 2016
*	Rock Landing Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 23 February 2016
*	Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ), 
dated 8 Aug 2018
*	Encounter Psychiatric Assessment, dated 9 May 2019 
*	“UNC” Psychiatry, Goldsboro, NC, dated 18 June 1920
*	Character References x4
*	Army Commendation Medal Certificate
*	Army Achievement Medal Certificate
*	Army Good Conduct Medal Certificate
*	Certificate of Achievement 
*	Combat Patch Certificate
*	Operation Desert Storm Certificate
*	DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Action)
*	Approval Authorities Approval of Request for Discharge
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active Duty)
*	Personnel Qualification Record



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 (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 states his discharge was an injustice because his post-traumatic 
stress disorder (PTSD) was a major mitigating factor in his misconduct.  He participated 
in several combat operations.  He watched bodies burn, was on high alert for missile 
and chemical attacks, and he experienced other trauma.  These events affected and 
caused him to develop PTSD.  A fellow Soldier recognized the change in his behavior.  
To calm his fears, he turned to alcohol and marijuana.  In addition, he carried a gun for 
protection.  He failed a drug test and received an under other than honorable conditions 
discharge.  Post-service, he was diagnosed with PTSD.  In 2018, the VA connected his 
PTSD to his service.  His treating doctor also provided a letter tying his PTSD to his 
service and opined that PTSD negatively affected his thinking and judgment.  His 
discharge was based on self-medicating behavior to cope with PTSD, which was a 
factor in his misconduct; liberal consideration, should be used in upgrading his 
discharge.

3.  Additionally, he states his total service warranted an honorable discharge.  He is a 
combat veteran who participated in multiple operations.  He received a Combat Patch, 
Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Good Conduct Medal, and 
other awards.  Since leaving the service, he suffered and overcame homelessness, 
addiction, and suicidal ideations.  Letters were provided to support his character.  Due 
to clemency and his overall service, an upgrade is warranted.

4.  The applicant and counsel provided:

      a.  A Brief in Support of Application stating he enlisted in the United States Army on 
1 December 1988.  Prior to deployment, he was described as a jokester, a dependable 
person always looking to make others laugh.  He was engaged in multiple combat 
operations.  He was deployed to Saudi Arabia and participated in several campaigns 
and received numerous awards.  Before his service, he had no history of any mental 
health conditions.  During his service traumatic events and experiences took a 
significant toll on his mental health.  Notably, the area where his unit was stationed was 
on high alert for “SCUD” missile and chemical attacks.  He was left to sleep during an 
ongoing alert for a chemical attack.  When he awoke, everyone else was wearing their 
full Chemical Protection (MOPP) gear.  He felt that not being woken up demonstrated 
he could not trust others with his life.  After this incident he began to have trouble 
sleeping.  His unit also drove through combat zones during a ground war.  

          (1)  During these runs, the unit encountered enemy soldiers trying to surrender 
and tanks on fire with bodies inside.  During one trip, he watched a person fall from a 
burning tank to his death.  The traumatic events transformed him.  He stopped trusting 
others in his squad entirely.  He also stopped socializing with others.  A friend noticed 
the changes and his self-isolation, anger, and aggressiveness.  At the time he felt as a 
young man in an infantry unit he could not admit he was struggling.  He felt alone, 
constantly afraid and untrusting.  To calm his fears, he began self-medicating with 
alcohol and marijuana to allow him to feel “normal.”  It allowed him to sleep.   

           (2)  In 1992, a military police (MP) pulled him over for a broken taillight, noticed 
the gun in the vehicle, and arrested him.  He was drug tested and failed due to his 
marijuana use.  In lieu of court-martial, he accepted an under other than honorable 
conditions discharge for misconduct.

           (3)  Over the years, his untreated illness affected everything in his life, including 
his personal relationships, work, housing, and getting an education.  Post-service, in 
2016, he was finally diagnosed with PTSD and started receiving treatment.  In 2018, a 
VA examiner filled out a DBQ affirming the PTSD diagnosis, noting the traumatic events 
he experienced and witnessed in combat were PTSD stressors.  In 2019, his doctor 
directly tied his misconduct to the PTSD he developed because of multiple traumatic 
events he witnessed and experienced in-service.  Due to the PTSD, his thinking, 
judgement, and behavior were negatively affect, causing him to believe he was only 
safe carrying a firearm.  To deal with symptoms of PTS, he used marijuana so that he 
could sleep and carried a firearm to feel safe.  The misconduct that resulted in his 
discharge was a product of his attempt to cope with his PTSD that developed while 
deployed.

           (4)  Per the 2014 Hagel Memorandum and 2017 Clarifying Guidance, he 
respectfully requests this Board grant liberal consideration, that the behavior underlying 
the discharge was a direct result of PTSD symptoms, and the experiences he suffered 
in service.   He now respectfully requests the ABCMR remove the injustice from his 
military records by upgrading his discharge to “honorable.”  In the alternative, he 
requests that his discharge be upgraded to “general, under honorable conditions,” with 
a narrative reason of “Secretarial Authority.”

           (5)  Introduction - On 29 December 1988, he enlisted in the Army and he was 
stationed at Fort Knox, KY, as a tank. Crewman.  He was advanced to private/E-2 on
29 June 1989.  Unfortunately, on 4 October 1989, he received an Article 15 for fighting 
and was demoted to private/E-1.  He overcame this setback and on 1 March 1990, he 
was advanced again to private/E-2.  Two months later he was advanced to private first 
class/E-3.  In December 1990, he was stationed at Fort Riley, KS.  He met a battle 
buddy, and lifetime friend.  Near the end of 1990, his unit deployed to Saudi Arabia 
where he participated in the Defense of Saudi Arabia, Liberation and Defense of Kuwait, 
and Southwest Asia Cease Fire Campaigns.  He was awarded the Combat Patch, for 
service in Operation Desert Storm, from 7 January to 7 May 1991 and received 
imminent danger pay for temporary duty in “AMEA Saudi Arabia.”  

          (6)  He wrote letters to his sister detailing the things he saw.  The letters were 
very emotional and his inability to understand or process the traumatic events were very 
evident.  Mr. grew concerned, he noticed a shift in the applicant’s behavior.  He stopped 
trusting others, deteriorating from the person that he had known.  He started staying in 
his truck and stopped socializing.  One night, he was found in his truck screaming and 
crying, “I just want to go horn.”  After returning to Fort Riley in 1991, he felt like a 
different man.  He did not speak to anyone about his emotions, because he believed he 
was the only one experiencing issues with the deployment.  He felt like he could not 
admit he was experiencing trauma from combat.  He felt alone, constantly afraid, and 
untrusting of others.  He began self-medicating with alcohol to feel “normal.”  Later, he 
turned to marijuana to help.

           (7)  Stateside, Mr. now roommates with the applicant noticed that his behavior 
and anger had not improved.  He became very aggressive and argumentative, he drank 
heavily, began carrying weapons, and was not sleeping.  He felt like he might explode 
and only felt safe carrying a gun.

           (8)  When Mr confronted the applicant about his behavioral changes, the 
applicant indicated he felt embarrassed that other Soldiers were watching him and 
judging him for his post-deployment issues.  He drank alcohol to socialize and appear 
“normal.”  Late one night, Mr. found the applicant in the corner of a room having a panic 
attack.  Mr. was terrified, because he did not know how to help the applicant.

           (9)  On 10 February 1992, a flag was initiated against the applicant after he was 
caught driving on base with a gun and later, tested positive for marijuana.  He carried a 
gun because his then-undiagnosed PTSD made him feel constantly unsafe.  He dealt 
with his symptoms by smoking marijuana.  

           (10)  Post-service the applicant continued to suffer silently pushing those close to 
him away.  He and his wife were divorced, due to his isolation, aggressiveness, and his 
generally tempered behavior.  His wife felt he was no longer the same man that she 
married.  After the divorce, the applicant became homeless.  His sister was shocked to 
learn her brother was no longer in the Army and homeless.  His sister took him in, but 
soon noticed major changes in him.  He would wake-up in the middle of the night yelling 
in cold sweats.  He would remain in his room for days, not speak to anyone and stopped 
showering.  Out of concern for the applicant his sister removed all weapons from her 
home.  Unfortunately, due to his self-medicating, drug use, and behavior, he became 
homeless once again.  He considered suicide during this time.  It was the lowest point of 
his life.  The stigma associated with an under other than honorable conditions discharge 
affected his ability to get a job.  When he did finally get a construction job, he had 
flashbacks triggered by a tire blowing out.  Believing he was back in combat, he ran to 
hide in his truck.  His friends and coworkers witnessed this and heard him mumbling.  
Once again, he self-isolated out of fear that he might do something to affect his 
livelihood. 

           (11)  He developed PTSD during his deployment to Saudi Arabia.  In the early 
nineties.  Had his PTSD been recognized at the time of discharge, his misconduct 
would likely have been excused or mitigated.  Today, PTSD's negative affect on 
decision making and behavior is recognized.  If he had been discharged under current 
screening procedures relating to PTSD, he likely would not have received his current 
discharge.  The discharge he received is an injustice that he has struggled with for the 
past almost three decades.  His misconduct should be reviewed in light of his PTSD 
diagnosis and symptoms.

           (12)  Analysis, Waiver of Time Limit - An application to the Board must be 
submitted within 3 years of discovering the error.  However, this may be waived in the 
interest of justice.  The Carson memorandum requires this Board to liberally waive 
applications based on a mental health condition.  It is in the interest of justice that the 
time limit be waived.

           (13)  His discharge was an injustice because his mental health condition was a 
major contributing factor in the misconduct.  The ABCMR may upgrade a discharge to 
correct an injustice.  The Hagel Memorandum and subsequent Carson Memorandum 
instruct boards to consider whether PTSD or other mental health conditions were 
mitigating factors in the misconduct that led to a veteran's discharge.  In 2017 clarifying 
guidance was issued based in whole or in part to mental health conditions.  The 
guidance requires the Board to make four inquires:

*	Did the veteran have a condition or experience that may excuse or 
mitigate the discharge?
*	Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service?
*	Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the 
misconduct?
*	Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge?

           (14)  Liberal consideration will be given to veterans petitioning for discharge relief 
when the application is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health 
conditions.  Although liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade, relief may be 
appropriate for minor misconduct commonly associated with mental health conditions.

           (15)  The applicant has PTSD, which excuses and mitigates the discharge.  
Evidenced by his personal statement, contemporaneous statements and post-service 
diagnoses.  Absent clear evidence to the contrary, a diagnosis rendered by a licensed 
psychiatrist or psychologist is evidence the veteran had a condition that may excuse or 
mitigate the discharge.  He had multiple assessments which support a PTSD diagnosis, 
showing the symptoms began in service, as evidenced by his personal statement, a 
buddy’s statement, and his sister's statement.  

           (16)  In his personal statement, he indicated drinking, using marijuana, and 
carrying a gun helped him with his PTSD symptoms.  At the time he did not recognize 
that he was experiencing PTSD and did not understand that he needed help.  A lack of 
understanding PTSD and believing he could manage his problem by himself led him to 
engage in misconduct which ultimately ended in his discharge.  He has a mental health 
condition that mitigates the misconduct that led to his discharge.

           (17)  His mental health condition existed during service, evidenced by his 
personal statement supporting statements, and post-service diagnoses.  A diagnosis 
made by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist that the condition existed during military 
service will receive liberal consideration.  On 4 February 2016, a mental health 
assessment detailed various mental health symptoms he faced in service that 
continued.  He explained his issues with trust and his poor behavior, including mood 
swings, irritability, isolation, and inability to sleep.  This assessment diagnosed him with 
trauma and stressor-related disorder.

           (18)  Moreover, his PTSD symptom are well documented.  Before deployment, 
he was generally a good-natured individual.  It was not until his deployment that he 
started to isolate and withdrawing from others out of lack of trust.  

          (19)  According to the clarifying guidance, supporting evidence may also include 
changes in behavior…. deterioration in work performance, inability of the individual to 
conform their behavior, and expectations to a military environment.  The clarifying 
guidance also provides that supporting evidence "may also include substance abuse.  
His medical assessments, personal statement, and behavioral change left him unable to 
conform his behavior to the expectations of a military environment.  There is ample 
evidence in the medical assessment and his personal statement that he abused 
substances as he attempted to grapple with PTSD.  Evidence supports that his PTSD 
existed during military service.

           (20)  PTSD excuses and mitigates the discharge because his mental health 
disorder was a major contributing factor in the misconduct.  Conditions or experiences 
that may reasonably have existed at the time of discharge will be liberally considered as 
excusing or mitigating the discharge.  He was actively experiencing symptoms of PTSD 
when he engaged in misconduct for which he was discharged.  


           (21)  His PTSD outweighs his misconduct.  Although, in some cases, the severity 
of the misconduct may outweigh any mitigation from the mental health conditions 
inherently affect one's behaviors and choices causing individuals to think and behave 
differently than might otherwise be expected.  Specifically, efforts to self-medicate 
symptoms of a medical health condition warrants consideration.

           (22)  Service members today receive heightened screening to ensure the 
possible relationship of symptoms and discharge basis is fully considered and the 
discharge character is appropriate.  When compared with similarly situations under 
today’s standards older veterans may be the victim of an injustice because 
commanders are more fully informed today of such relationships and may opt for less 
prejudicial discharges to ensure the veteran retains certain benefits.  

           (23)  This heightened scrutiny did not exist in the early 1990’s when the applicant 
was discharged.  There is a high probability that had it existed he would have gotten the 
help he desperately needed, instead of suffering silently.  His symptoms worsened as 
he felt there was no one to help him.  As the symptoms worsened, they affected his 
behavior and decision making.  His undiagnosed PTSD was central to the misconduct.  
As such the misconduct should be viewed in context for what it was.  He attempts to 
manage the symptoms of PTSD, an illness he did not understand or know he had.  The 
record shows he was not able to process the traumatic events.  This Board should see 
his symptoms as evidence of his mental health conditions.  The ABMCR should find that 
his PTSD is not outweighed by the misconduct.

           (24)  His Discharge was an injustice because his service meets the requirements 
for an honorable discharge.  An Honorable discharge is appropriate when the quality of 
the Soldiers service generally meets the standards of acceptable conduct or is 
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  
A general discharge is issued to a Soldier whose service is honest and faithful, but 
significant negative aspects outweigh the positive aspects.

           (25)  Since leaving the service, he has battled PSTD and shown exemplary 
fortitude.  He has obtained a civil engineering degree which took him longer than the 
traditional track because of anxiety attacks and fears. 

           (26)  Conclusion – He served in multiple operations and campaigns while abroad 
and received various awards during his time in the service.  While abroad he 
experienced trauma which caused him to develop PTSD.  He grappled with PSTD 
symptoms and self-medicated to feel safe, which ultimately led to him failing a 
urinalysis.  He began carrying a weapon because previously he believed he could not 
count on others.  This condition and his traumatic experiences are mitigating factors in 
the miscount.  He respectfully requests the ABCMR upgrade his discharge to fully 
honorably or in the alternative to general, under honorable conditions, and change his 
narrative reason for discharge to “Secretarial Authority.”

     b.  The applicant’s personal statement indicates he was diagnosed with PTSD in 
2016.  This diagnosis along with the several therapy sessions, was the culmination of 
his battle to understand the changes in his mental state.  The changes that he believes 
were a direct result of his deployment in support of Operations Desert Shield/Desert 
Storm.  He believes he should have been discharged due to the combat related trauma 
he experienced during his military service.  His trauma has been identified and clearly 
documented by a licensed practitioner.

           (1)  In December 1990, he was reassigned to Headquarters and Headquarters 
Company (HHC), 3rd Battalion, 37th Armor, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, KS.  Upon 
arrival, he was reclassified to an 88M and learned to operate the Cargo Hemet.  By 
years end the unit deployed to Saudi Arabia.  

           (2)  During their time there, the unit experienced several siren warnings of a 
possible chemical or SCUD attack.  Leadership instilled the importance of remaining on 
high alert at all times as it could save lives.  One particular night while asleep, a few of 
them awoke to find everyone around in full MOPP gear.  He was terrified, because no 
one woke him.  Leadership failed him and no one was concerned about it.

           (3)  They advanced deeper into Saudi Arabia.  Once the ground war started, they 
continual to support HHC 3rd Battalion, 37th Armor, 1st Infantry Division.  He was 
assigned duties that included ammo delivery as well as chow and water runs.  During 
some of these shuttles, he would come across areas where he would see the remnants 
of war.  He spent lots of time driving through combat zones and encountering severely 
injured enemy soldiers, and enemy soldiers trying to surrender as they passed through 
the areas. 

           (4)  During the times when they were supporting the mechanized units in combat, 
he saw burning bodies on or hanging out of burning tanks.  One scene that continues to 
haunt him is when he saw an enemy soldier fall from his tank and burn to death.  In 
1991, he returned to Fort Riley a changed man.  He wanted to be alone, he was afraid, 
and trusted no one.  Nobody talked to them about their experiences or asked if they 
were having problems.  He didn't hear anyone else saying they were feeling what he 
was feeling and he didn't want to become the butt of his coworker's jokes.  He thought 
everyone else had returned to life as if nothing happened, for him he was still in combat.  
There was no way he could admit he was having problems.  He didn't know what to do 
with the feelings and visions he was having problems coping with.  

           (5)  Things were different; he was having problems sleeping.  He started isolating 
himself and drinking, then it escalated into using marijuana.  He showed up for 
formations drunk and late.  When he did fall asleep, he would oversleep due to sleep 
deprivation.  His roommate Mr. noticed what was going on and they had a conversation 
about it.  After that conversation he knew people were watching him.  He was 
embarrassed and did not want others to know he was having problems.  Whenever he 
did socialize, he used alcohol to calm his fears.  He would go days without sleep making 
him angrier.  His fears were really bad and he started carrying a gun.

           (6)  Sometime in 1992, while driving on post he was pulled over by an MP for a 
taillight being out.  The MP noticed the gun under his seat and arrested him.  He was 
released to his unit and drug tested.  He received a field grade Article 15, was given 
45 days of extra duty, and restriction, and he was advised he was being court-martialed, 
and he needed to seek counsel.  His appointed Judge Advocate General (JAG) Iawyer 
informed him that if found guilty by a court-martial he could serve time and receive a 
dishonorable discharge from the military.  He didn't want that because he knew his 
actions were a reflection of what he was feeling internally.  During their next meeting, 
his lawyer informed him, that he would receive an under other than honorable 
conditions discharge.  At the time he felt this was an acceptable discharge, not 
understanding how this discharge would affect his life then and now.  He was young 
and did not understand the significance of the discharge he was issued.

           (7)  After his discharge, he had to make sense of things, he still had all the same 
feelings and struggles.  Things seemed to only get worse.  His wife divorced him 
because she could not deal with his behavior; he became verbally abusive and she said 
he was not the same person that she married.  He remained in for a period of time and 
during this time he became homeless.  He contacted his sister and she sent me a bus 
ticket back to.  But his sister was not tolerating the aggression, anger, and drug use.  So 
he started living in abandon houses.  He thought about ending it, but could never go 
through with it, so he would just drink until he passed out.

           (8)  It was really difficult for him to get a job.  Finally, he got a construction job.  
There was an incident on job where his fears got the best of him.  He was working on 
the side of the road and as a car passed by its tire blew out.  He began to fear he was 
back in combat and ran to his work truck as fast as he could and hid on the floor board 
of the truck.  His chest tightened making it hard for him to breath. 

           (9)  In the early 2000s, he wanted to change his life so he started taking college 
courses.  His fears would escalate and he often left classes because of anxiety attacks 
and fears that people were watching or following him.  His anxiety made obtaining his 
associates degree a struggle and he almost gave up, but he stuck it out and 7 years 
later he obtained his degree.  But through the grace of God, 10 years later he has a civil 
engineering degree.  He is currently employed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  
But his characterization of service continues to hinder him from finding a job at an 
increased “GS” Level.
           (10)  He and his sister are working on their relationship and he is thankful for 
that.  She tries to help him find balance.  She is the one who suggested that he seek 
help with his problems.  He sought help and he has been diagnosed with depression 
and PTSD.  His treatment includes medication for depression (citalopram-depression), 
anxiety (trazadone- anti-depressant), and something to manage his sleep (prazosin 
1mg).  During his therapy sessions, he is learning relaxation techniques.  During 
cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), he is learning to identify/reduce stressors for PTSD.  
He has also tried eye movement desensitization reprocessing (EMDR) therapy for 
PTSD, but it had adverse effects on his thought process, sleep, and nightmares.  He still 
struggles with certain situations, but he is trying to find ways to combat this issue.  He is 
researching ways to better deal with his condition, now that he knows that he is not 
alone and there is help for him.

           (11)  He attends church and seeks God for refuge.  As he tries to focus on his 
future, plans, and goals under Gods approval.  He also continues to combat his 
diagnosis and make himself a better person.  He is currently working on certifications, 
and licensing to help advance his engineering career.

           (12)  He knows the actions that caused his separation were wrong and he is 
embarrassed to discuss his military service due to his mistakes.  If he knew what\he 
knows now, he would stand up for himself and let someone know that something wasn't 
right when he returned from deployment.  He was young and invincible until he 
witnessed a world and experiences he was not prepared to handle.  However, he is 
proud to have served his country, but disgusted about the way his service ended.  
When he joined the military, he knew that he would complete 20 years of service and 
retire.  He trusted the process and did his part; looking out for his battle buddies 
because they would be there for him.  When his problems arose, he was no longer 
worthy of that team effort, and was hastily removed from the team.  

           (13)  He feels the change in his behavior was not only overlooked, the 
command’s choice to abandon him with the swift decision to judge, punish, and 
discharge him was an action in part due to prejudice.  He was judged as another 
aggressive, Africa American male who was a problem, instead of a combat Soldier who 
saw too much, in a foreign country, and needed help.  

           (14)  It is no secret that African American Soldiers are substantially more likely 
than whites Soldiers to face disciplinary action.  He hopes it can be understood that his 
mental health condition affected his decision making and it continues to affect him on a 
daily basis.   

     c.  A VA DBQ, dated 8 August 2018, confirming the applicant has a diagnosis of 
PTSD that conforms to the DSM-5 criteria based on today’s evaluation.

     d.  Five psychological assessments, dated 4 February 2016, 22 February and 
23 February 2016, 9 May 2019, and 18 June 2020 as listed under “Applicant's 
Supporting Documents Considered by the Board.  The Board was provided the 
applicant’s submissions in its entirety.

     e.  Four character references:

          (1)  Pastor states, the applicant is a very fine person.  He has known the applicant 
more than 40 years and been blessed to be his pastor for about 12 years.  His character 
and integrity is above reproach.  He understands the applicant is trying to get his 
discharge upgraded.  When the applicant was young he made some decisions that he 
regrets.  He has learned from his mistakes.  He loves our country and wants to do the 
right thing.  Pastor supports the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge 
without reservation. 

          (2)  Ms. the applicant’s sister, states she and the applicant had a pretty good 
relationship growing up.  While he was at war, he would write her letters detailing the 
things he had seen and how difficult he found it to understand.  His letters were very 
emotional, and he seemed not to be able to process it all.  She didn't understand how 
bad it was until he contacted her, told her he was no longer in the Army, and he was 
homeless.  When she got him home he was very hard to live with at times.  His behavior 
would dramatically change and they would have aggressive discussions that started 
over the smallest things.  He was not the brother that always made her laugh.  He would 
wake-up at night yelling from cold sweats.  Sometimes she was afraid of him, but she 
wanted to take care of him the way he took care of her when they were growing up.  
After several talks with his wife, she discovered they were divorced because of his 
behavior.  There were times when he would not talk, bathe or come out of the room for 
days at a time.  She did not know how to help him or where to get help, but one day he 
came to her and discussed his mental illness.  Surprisingly, the conversation was about 
how he felt some days and how much he needed help.  Asking for help was a big sign.  
He had bad days, but he was different.  She was able to explain to him that he should 
not feel embarrassed and he should talk to someone.  His perseverance is what has got 
him where he is now.  He still suffers from depression, sleep deprivation, and anxiety.  
Every once in a while she sees the brother she once knew.  He is learning different 
ways of dealing with his illness other than alcohol.

          (3)  Mr. an employee at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the applicant’s 
friend, states he has known the applicant 9 years.  They met while attending college in 
Hampton, VA.  The applicant is a very hard worker.  He was a student and worked full 
time.  The applicant is an outstanding person, the applicant is always there to help in 
both his professional and personal life.

          (4)  Mr. states he has known the applicant since 1990, they met at Fort Riley, KS.  
They deployed together to Operation Desert Shield, and they quickly became battle 
buddies.  During the course of their deployment to Saudi Arabia they became great 
friends.  The applicant was a very outgoing person and the practical joker of the 
platoon.  He was a dependable Solider and the kind of person that would check on 
others, to make sure they were OK.  He noticed some changes in the applicant.  During 
a SCUD missile attack, he and the applicant woke-up to find everyone in full MOPP 
gear and no one woke them up.  He remembers the applicant being very upset that no 
one cared about his safety.  Shortly after that the applicant had a hard time sleeping.  
He did not believe anyone else would keep him safe.  

          (5)  Mr. also states, as the ground war started the applicant would talk about 
seeing enemy vehicles blown up, and at times, the people inside of the vehicles burned 
to death.  As time progressed, his behavior changed even more, he stopped trusting in 
his squad and he started to slowly deteriorate.  He started staying in his truck and not 
socializing with other Soldiers.  Even though, he checked on the applicant to ensure he 
was alright, he didn't know what was happening.  One night while the applicant was in 
his truck, he was beating on the steering wheel screaming and crying, “I want to go 
home,” over and over.  When the applicant returned to the United States, his behavior 
didn't improve.  He still wasn't sleeping.  He wasn't trusting anyone and he became very 
aggressive, argumentative, and would get into fights at the drop of a hat.  He started 
drinking heavily and carrying weapons.  Late one night, he found the applicant sitting in 
the corner of the room having a panic attack, and it terrified him because he didn't know 
what to do.  Not too long after that, the applicant informed him that he had gotten into 
trouble, then a couple of months later he was out of the military.  

           (6)  Additionally, Mr.  states he did not have any contact information for the 
applicant, so he could never reach out to see how the applicant was doing, but one day, 
in 1997, he spotted a person he thought was the applicant walking down the street in.  It 
was a blessing to see the applicant, but he could see this wasn't the same man that he 
knew.  The applicant told him his history of being homeless and his wife divorcing him.  
After that time, he would see the applicant after months at a time.  The applicant would 
always tell him “man I'm not giving up it’s got to be better for me out there somewhere.”  
He watched the applicant struggle with addiction, alcohol, and his mental state.  The 
applicant was determined to find his way back.  The applicant continues to seek help 
and fight for normalcy.

4.  The available evidence shows, on 29 December 1988, the applicant enlisted in the 
Regular Army for 4 years.  He completed the training requirements and he was awarded 
military occupational specialty 19K (M1 Armor Crewman).  The highest grade he achieved 
was specialist four/pay grade E-4.  On 19 February 1990, he was assigned to HHC, 3rd 
Battalion, 37th Armor, Fort Riley, KS.  He served in Saudi Arabia from 7 January 
through 13 May 1991.  The Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm Data Base Roster 
Compiled by the Defense Manpower Data Center confirms these dates.

5.  The applicant's record does not contain all of the facts and circumstances 
surrounding the discharge process.  However, the record does contain a properly 
constituted DD Form 214 showing he was discharged on 28 July 1992 under the 
provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted 
Personnel), chapter 10.  His DD Form 214 confirms he completed 3 years and 
7 months, of active service.  His authorized awards are listed as the Army Service 
Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal with 3 bronze 
service stars, Kuwait Liberation Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, Sharpshooter 
Marksmanship Qualification Badge (9MM Caliber Pistol), and Expert Marksmanship 
Qualification Badge (Hand Grenade).  His DD Form 214 also shows in:

*	Character of Service, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”
*	Reason and Authority, “AR 635-200, Chapter 10”
*	Separation Code, “KFS”
*	Reentry Code, “3” 
*	Narrative Reason for Separation, “For the Good of the Service-In Lieu of 
Court-Martial”
*	Dates of Lost Time This Period, “NONE”

6.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) requires the entry of all Federally 
recognized awards on the DD Form 214.  There is no provision to enter certificates of 
achievement, commendation, or appreciation. 

7.  A review of the applicant's records show he is authorized additional awards not listed 
on his DD Form 214.  

     a.  Certificate, dated 24 June 1991, states he was awarded the Army Commendation 
Medal for exceptional service during the period 24 February through 6 March 1991, 
while participating in Operation Desert Storm.  During the Ground Offensive Task Force 
3-37 Armor was the spearhead for the CORPS effort in a deliberate breach through 
prepared Iraqi positions.  The Task Force, while in contact with Iraq Forces continued 
the attack for 260 kilometers contributing to the defeat of Iraq's Elite Republican Guards. 
His exemplary performance maintains the highest tradition of the unit and the United 
States Army.  The certificate shows Orders 6-003, issued by Headquarters Company, 
3rd Battalion, 37th Armor Regiment, 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized).  The certificate 
is signed by Colonel AAM, Infantry Commanding.

    b.  A Certificate, dated 6 February 1992, states he was awarded the Army 
Achievement Medal for meritorious achievement while assigned to the Transportation 
Platoon, Headquarters Company, 3rd Battalion, 37th Armor.  His performance during 
the Level 1 Gunnery reflects great credit upon himself, the unit, and the United States 
Army.  The certificate shows Orders 5-16.  The certificate is signed by Lieutenant 
Colonel , Armor Commanding.
8.  With respect to the Combat Patch Certificate, Operation Desert Storm Certificate, 
and the Certificate of Achievement that were provided, commanders may recognize 
acts, achievements, periods of faithful service, special acts, or a certificate of 
achievement, or commendation of local design.  Although copies of these certificates 
will be filed in the official military personnel file, there is no distinguishing device 
authorized for wear to indicate the receipt of a certificate, and no provision to list such 
certificates on the DD Form 214.

9.  AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  
Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed 
an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive 
discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time 
after court-martial charges were preferred, commanders would ensure that an individual 
was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service.  

10.  The applicant provided the documents and certificates listed above under the 
“Applicant's Supporting Documents Considered by the Board.  The Board was provided 
the applicant’s submissions in its entirety.

11.  The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with 
the presumption of administrative regularity.  

12.  The available evidence does not contain all of the facts and circumstances 
surrounding the discharge process.  However, the available evidence does show that he 
was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, 
in lieu of court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

13.  The applicant’s narrative reason for separation was “for the good of the service, in 
lieu of court-martial.  The SPD code of “KFS,” and the RE code of “3” are appropriate 
based on his reason for discharge from active duty under the provisions of AR 635-200, 
chapter 10.  

14.  Additional awards the applicant may be authorized to have listed on his 
DD Form 214 are addressed in the notes portion of this Record of Proceedings.

15.  He completed 3 years and 7 days of his 4-year service obligation.  In reaching its 
determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition, his contentions, 
submissions, PTSD diagnosis, and service record in accordance with the published 
equity, injustice, or clemency guidance. 

16.  MEDICAL REVIEW:    

The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting 
documents and the applicant’s military service records. The Armed Forces Health 
Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) & Health Artifacts Image Solutions 
(HAIMS) was not in use at the time of his service. His hardcopy medical records were 
not available for review. A review of his civilian records indicate he was diagnosed with 
PTSD related to his military service. On 7 Aug 2018, he was evaluated by a VA 
examiner for PTSD. The examiner confirmed a diagnosis of PTSD related to his 
deployment. A review of JLV indicates he does not have a service-connected disability 
rating. In accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Secretary of Defense Liberal Guidance 
Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017, Clarifying Guidance there is documentation to 
support a behavioral health diagnosis at the time of his discharge. There is no 
information in his service record regarding the specific misconduct that led to his 
discharge. The applicant states he was pulled over on post and arrested due to a gun in 
his vehicle. He reported subsequently failed a drug test due to marijuana use. Without 
specifics, an opine regarding mitigation can’t be provided. Of note, under liberal 
guidance PTSD is considered mitigating for drug use but it would not be considered 
mitigating for bring a weapon on post in violation of military regulations. 
    a.  Kurta Questions
(1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate 
the discharge?	
      (a) Yes
(2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service?   
      (a) Yes
(3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge?
      (a) No information regarding specific court marital charges
(4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 
      (a) Can’t be determined.


BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that 
relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of 
service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive 
and standard review based on law, policy and regulation, and published Department of 
Defense guidance for liberal and clemency determinations requests for upgrade of his 
characterization of service. One potential outcome was to grant relief based on liberal 
consideration and the applicant’s post service accomplishes and noteworthy letters of 
support of how the applicant had changed his life. However, upon review of the 
applicant’s petition, available military records and medical review, the Board concurred 
with the advising official finding there is documentation to support a behavioral health 
diagnosis at the time of his discharge. There is no information in his service record 
regarding the specific misconduct that led to his discharge. Th Board agreed without 
specifics, an opine regarding mitigation can’t be provided. Of note, under liberal 
guidance PTSD is considered mitigating for drug use but it would not be considered 
mitigating for bring a weapon on post in violation of military regulation. The Board 
determined there was insufficient evidence, but recommended the applicant provide 
documentation for the Board to make a clear determination. Based on this, the Board 
determined relief was not warranted and denied relief.

2.  This board is not an investigative body.  The Board determined despite the absence 
of the applicant’s medical records, they agreed the burden of proof rest on the applicant, 
however, he did not provide any supporting documentation and his service record has 
insufficient evidence to support the applicant contentions of behavioral health concerns.


BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	X	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

X	X	:	DENY APPLICATION




BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

Except for the correction addressed in Administrative Note(s) below, the Board found 
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.

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):

1.  AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, stated the DD Form 
214 was to list all decorations, service medals, campaign credits, and badges awarded 
or authorized. 

2.  As a result, amend his DD Form 214, ending on 28 July 1992, by adding in
item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or 
Authorized):  The Army Commendation Medal and Army Achievement Medal.


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.  AR 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), 
reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on 
the DD Form 214.  The SPD code “KFS” is the appropriate code to assign Soldiers 
separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, by reason of “For the Good 
of the Service-In Lieu of Court-Martial.”

3.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table stipulates the RE code of “3” would be 
assigned to members separated with the SPD code of “KFS.” 

4.  AR 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility 
criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the RA and the 
USAR.  Table 3-1 includes a list of the RA RE codes: 

      a.  RE-1 applies to Soldiers completing their term of active service who are 
considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army.  They are qualified for enlistment if all 
other criteria are met. 

      b.  RE-3 applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or 
continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable.  They are 
ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 

5.  AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military 
records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR.  The regulation 
provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of 
administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice 
by a preponderance of the evidence.

6.  AR 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of 
enlisted personnel, it states: 

    a.  A Chapter 10 is applicable to members who had committed an offense or offenses 
for which the authorized punishment included a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge 
could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service.  The request could be 
submitted at any time after the charges had been preferred.  Although an honorable or 
general discharge was authorized, an under other than honorable conditions discharge 
was normally considered appropriate.
 
   b.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable 
characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally 
met standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  

    c.  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.

     d.  Paragraph 5-3 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.  

7.  On 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge 
Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 
(BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical 
considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former 
service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions 
and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional 
representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be 
appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service.
 
8.  On 25 August 2017 the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs 
and BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their 
discharges due in whole or in part to:  mental health conditions, including PTSD; 
traumatic brain injury (TBI); sexual assault; or sexual harassment.  Standards for review 
should rightly consider the unique nature of these cases and afford each veteran a 
reasonable opportunity for relief even if the sexual assault or sexual harassment was 
unreported, or the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years later.  Boards 
are to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the 
application for relief is based in whole or in part on those conditions or experiences.  
The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to 
consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for 
misconduct that led to the discharge.   

9.  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)	AR20210015531


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1