IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 June 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210016051 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable * any compensation be awarded thereof APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Continuation of Application * Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Administrative Decision * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Veterans Moving Forward Certificates * Proof of Service FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code, 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 is requesting an upgrade of his discharge and any compensation be awarded thereof. He indicates on his application he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), other mental health issues, sexual assault/harassment, and reprisal/whistleblower. He states, in effect: a. He comes from a military family, his father is a veteran of two different branches of the military the Army and the Navy. He instilled in the applicant the importance of serving your country. This led to the applicant's brother to enter the service in the Navy, which lead to another brother to enter the service in the US Air Force, which ultimately lead to the applicant's service in the US Army. b. Based upon the applicant's discharge for other than honorable reasons, the service from his family has stopped; however, after many years of hardship, stress, and denial of trying to adjust back into civilian life himself, unfortunately led to his downfall into drug abuse, domestic abuse, and crime. After he was discharged and entered society he entered the era of crack cocaine, which was an epidemic. The applicant believed this was the place in civilian life that was meant for him. He asks the Board to take into consideration that entering back into society with an other than honorable discharge is simultaneous to someone being released from prison. Opportunities are little to none. c. The applicant's potential was looking bright and positive before entering the US Army. The applicant was a star athlete in football and track and field in. He was offered opportunities to play at the top college level, yet he chose to serve his country. He took the knowledge and skills that he had acquired to that point in life and he joined the military. It was here he learned the power of the chain of command. He still remembers the life skills and sound advice in his young military career. clearly it was stated that any question or advice that was needed by a young Soldier could be answered by a superior officer. (1) For example, he recalls a young enlisted man asking a sergeant first class (SFC) his ideas on penis enlargement. The SFC stated don't waste your time and money on that type of procedure. It would not make you any bigger, you'll just get hard. However, from that type of open dialogue, the applicant felt the superior officer's wisdom and knowledge could be handed down. Basic training was not a problem for him but it was physical. That was his first experience in firing any kind of weapon and he still remembers the citing five down and five to the right. He also still remembers the kick of the M-60 and the backlash of the law. He earned the medal of sharpshooter. (2) He also specialized in different type of grenades and claymore mines. He earned an expert badge in that field. He went on to graduate second in his class leaving Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and going to advanced individual training at Fort Lee, Virginia. While in advanced individual training that the applicant experienced his first family problem. His young wife came to the conclusion she could join him in Virginia. This was something that was nearly impossible but with the help of another superior officer, he was afforded the opportunity to get this situation under control. The SFC arranged 15 days of leave for the applicant to fly back to to straighten out the situation. Needless to say, this was his first time he was subjected to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL). (3) He still remembers the SFC's statement saying he could only help the applicant so much, which led his young mind to believe that the power and advice of superior officers was truly superior. He says this because this is the same person who lent a helping hand and advice to the situation and this was also the same person who recommended 15 days under the control correctional facility, and this was enough to restore his priorities and continue his service in the military earning his military occupational specialty as a Petroleum Supply Specialist. d. It was going to his permanent duty station at Fort Hood, Texas that his life changed forever. He was assigned to a unit under there white Caucasian officers who came to the conclusion that his needs would be best served by an officer of his own race. He still believes today that this was part of the set up. This is when he was introduced to a SFC. Upon his influence, the SFC introduced him to his alternative life style, something he battled with compounded along with the other problems, however, this led to his ultimate AWOL with his wife giving birth to his son, who unfortunately died ten days later. Subsequently with all of this in front of him, he felt that it was his duty to state everything that led to this juncture. He informed his superior officers of the SFC's life style aggregated with his appropriate advancements, compounded with his superior rank form that evidence everything changed for the worse. (1) First, he was arrested and sent to the stockade, where he encountered agents from the FBI stating if he was not telling the truth he was going to Leavenworth. Only after several interviews and a lie detector examination did the Army press charges against the SFC. (2) Needless to say, after this emotional as well as psychological disturbing incident in his young life that SFC was never brought up for court-martial. This may be due to the fact that he retained one of the highest professionals in military law, which led to all the charges being dropped and the SFC being transferred to a new duty station. For the applicant being honest and truthful, he was told another lie that his discharge would become honorable in six months. e. Leaving the Army was something he never planned to do. Not only was it crushing to his life and well being it shattered his future plans for him and his family. He still believes he has not adjusted back into civilian life. Everything he has conveyed could be verified through his military records. He prays that like the VA, the Board would upgrade his service to honorable. Due to his unfortunate downfall to controlled substance abuse addiction, PTSD, and compounded with psychological breakdown it resulted in him being incarcerated with a life sentence. Veterans Moving Forward contacted him in an attempt to help him with his struggles toward rehabilitation. They stated he must go back to when all things went awry. 3. On 17 October 1984, at the age of 19 years old the applicant enlisted in the US Army Reserve (USAR) delayed entry program (DEP) for a period of 8 years. On 27 November 1984, the applicant was discharged from the USAR DEP and entered active duty for a period of 3 years. As part of his enlistment, he underwent a Report of medical Examination, which shows he was medically and emotionally qualified for enlistment. 4. His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel qualification Record) shows he entered basic training on 4 December 1984 and advanced individual training on 14 February 1985. 5. On 5 March 1985, the applicant's duty status was changed from present for duty (PDY) to AWOL. On 16 March 1985, his duty status was changed from AWOL to PDY. 6. On 26 March 1985, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being AWOl from on or about 4 March 1985 to on or about 9 March 1985. His punishment included 14 days' extra duty and restriction, and forfeiture of $133 suspended. 7. On 22 April 1985, the applicant accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (NCO) disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer. His punishment included 15 days' correctional custody, forfeiture of $280 for two months of which $280 was suspended. 8. On 10 September 1985, the applicant's duty status was changed from PDY to AWOL. On 19 September 1985, his duty status was changed from AWOL to PDY. 9. On 19 September 1985, the applicant received a General Counseling Form because he was pending NJP for not showing up to formation once again. He was counseled by the first sergeant (1SG) and was told to go back to see him and the applicant would move back into the barracks. The applicant signed the counseling form. On the same day the applicant's commander preferred charges against the applicant for being AWOL from on or about 10 September 1985 to on or about 17 September 1985 and stealing Army equipment of a value of about $495.03. 10. On 12 October 1985, the applicant received a General Counseling Form for failing to return from emergency leave when he was required to. The applicant was being considered for elimination from the service. The applicant signed the counseling form. 11. On 12 and 17 October 1985, the applicant was tried by Summary Court-Martial. He was found guilty of being AWOL and not guilty of larceny of government property. He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 30 days. 12. On 12 October 1985, A Bar to Reenlistment Certificate was completed on the applicant and shows the applicant had received a summary court-martial and had been AWOL from on or about 10 September 1985 returning 17 September 1985 after being apprehended, from on or about 1 October 1985 returning 4 October 1985 when he surrendered to an Air Force Base, and from on or about 4 October 1985 to on or about 13. On 12 October 1985, a Certificate of Acknowledgement, which states he had been advised of his right to submit any matters to the Convening Authority. He stated he wished to waive his right to submit matters to the Convening Authority. 14. On 24 October 1985, the summary court-martial was reviewed and was found the court-martial had jurisdiction over the applicant and each offense as to which there was a finding of guilty, each specification as to which there was a finding of guilty which had been disapproved stated offense, and the sentence was legal. 15. On 31 October 1985, the commander's recommendation to the bar the applicant from reenlistment was approved. 16. On 7 November 1985, the applicant received a General Counseling Form regarding his bar to reenlistment, summary court-martial, and AWOL from on or about 10 September 1985 to 17 September 1985 and from on or about 1 October 1985 to on or about 11 October 1985. The applicant signed the counseling form. 17. On 7 November 1985, his immediate commander initiated separation of the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separation) paragraph 14-12c, commission of a serious offense. The commander was recommending the applicant receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The reason for the commander's proposed action based on him being AWOL from on or about 10 September 1985 returning 17 September 1985. Summary Court- Martial, dated 17 October 1985, AWOL from on or about 1 October 1985 returning on or about 12 October 1985, and criminal investigation division report of sodomy. The commander was recommending the applicant receive and under other than honorable conditions discharge. a. On 7 November 1985, he consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the contemplated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, and its effects, and the rights available to him. He waived personal appearance before an administrative separation board, did not provide a statement on his own behalf, and waived consulting counsel. b. The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 7 February 1986, the appropriate separation authority approves the separation, directed he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and waived the rehabilitation requirement. c. On 26 February 1986, the applicant was discharged accordingly. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 1 month, and 20 days of active federal service. He had lost time from on or about 5 March 1985 to on or about 8 March 1985, to on or about 10 September 1985 to on or about 16 September 1985, on or about 1 October 1985 to on or about 11 October 1985, and on or about 17 October 1985 to on or about 25 October 1985. He was awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon, Sharpshooter Marksmanship Badge (Rifle), and Expert Marksmanship Badge (Grenade). 18. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 and the following documents for the Board's consideration: a. A document from the VA, which states the applicant's Army service from 27 November 1984 to 26 February 1986 was under honorable conditions for VA purposes and was not a bar to VA benefits. He was entitled to health care benefits for any disability determined to be service connected for active service. The letter further states: (1) The applicant enlisted into the Army on 27 November 1984, at the age of 19 years old. He served as a Petroleum Supply Specialist from enlistment until he was administratively separated on 26 February 1986. During his brief period of service, the applicant was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, the Sharpshooter badge for rifle, and the Expert badge for hand grenade. (2) His official personnel records show he was subject to NJP on 12 April 1985, resulting in 15 days under control of a Correctional Custody Facility, forfeiture of $280 a month for a period of two months of which $280 was suspended for a period of 90 days. He was also subject to punishment for insubordinate conduct toward a warrant officer noncommissioned officer, or petty officer for not getting off the phone in a timely manner, and for failure to obey an order or regulation on 18 April 1985 for failing to appear for bed check. The records also show the applicant was subjected to a Summary Court-Martial on 17 October 1985 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of military Justice (UCMJ) AWOL resulting in confinement at hard labor for 30 days with 20 days' confinement suspended for 180 days. (3) While the facts support the applicant's conduct was unbecoming of a Soldier, there are mitigating circumstances surrounding his periods of AWOL and subsequent Summary Court-Martial, which led to his other than honorable discharge. The offenses the applicant committed, although unlawful in the eyes of the military, are in line with a Soldier doing everything in his power to be present and provide for his growing family. The instances when the applicant was not present for duty occurred simultaneously with stressful life events. During his mental evaluation for court-martial, the applicant only cited marital problems as a point of concern. Furthermore, the Summary Court-Martial that directly led to the applicant's discharge came about from him overextending emergency leave to accompany his then 17-year-old wife back to . (4) Prior to his military career, the applicant had no law offenses, and there were no other indications of personal or domestic problems. It was only after enlisting, while the applicant was forced to be away from his pregnant wife and his family that he began to have complications, which led to his multiple military offenses. However, the Code of Federal Regulations states that multiple offenses are not automatically deemed persistent and in all of his periods of AWOL the applicant never became a deserter, in spite of his personal challenges. For those reasons, although willful, his conduct did not appear to be persistent in nature and he served the Army honorably and faithfully. (5) Sanity was not an issue. b. A document indicating the applicant had been attending Veterans Moving Forward meetings and had attended 10 out of 13 meetings from January 2017 to March 2017. His participation in the meetings was to be commended. His participation included a willingness to share his past experiences for the edification of the group and encouraging other inmates to share their experiences. c. A document indicating the applicant had been attending Veterans Moving Forward meetings and had attended 11 out of 13 meetings from April 2017 to June 2017. His participation in the meetings was to be commended. His participation included a willingness to share his past experiences for the edification of the group and encouraging other inmates to share their experiences. d. A document indicating the applicant had been attending Veterans Moving Forward meetings and had attended 7 out of 13 meetings from October 2016 to December 2016. His participation in the meetings was to be commended. His participation included a willingness to share his past experiences for the edification of the group and encouraging other inmates to share their experiences. e. A document entitled Proof of Service by Mail, which shows on 21 August 2020, the applicant's application was sent to the Army Review Board Agency. 19. 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. The applicant is requesting an upgrade of his discharge and any compensation awarded thereof. He indicates he suffers from PTSD, other mental heal issues, was a victim of sexual assault/harassment, and reprisal/whistleblower. He stated he had turned in a SFC for crimes, though he didn't specify what the SFC had done. The SFC was able to retain a military lawyer who was able to get him off the charges. The applicant was told his discharge would be upgraded after six months. b. There is no evidence in the applicant's service record, and the applicant did not provide documentary evidence, he suffered from PTSD or other mental health issues. The VA did state he was authorized health care benefits only for medical conditions found to be service connected; however, it did not indicate if he had any service- connected disabilities. c. There was an indication in the applicant's separation documents that there was a Criminal Investigation Division investigation against the applicant for sodomy. The investigation was not available for the Board's consideration, so there was no indication if he was the victim or the perpetrator. d. The applicant indicates he was discharged due to reprisal because he was a whistleblower in that he turned in the SFC for actions the SFC had done. The Military Whistleblower Protection Act was first enacted on 29 September 1988 (5 months after the applicant's separation); this Act provided that no member of the military would be restricted from communicating with a member of Congress or an Inspector General (IG) when that communication involved the disclosure of law violations, mismanagement, gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. In addition, the law prohibited retaliatory personnel actions against any member who made or had prepared make, such a communication. e. Title 31, U.S. Code, section 3702, also known as the Barring Statute, prohibits the payment of a claim against the Government unless the claim has been received by the Comptroller General within 6 years after the claim accrues. Among the important public policy considerations behind statutes of limitations, including the 6-year limitation for filing claims contained in this section of Title 31, U.S. Code, is relieving the Government of the need to retain, access, and review old records for the purpose of settling stale claims, which are often difficult to prove or disprove. f. At the time of the applicant's discharge, PTSD was largely unrecognized by the medical community and Department of the Defense (DOD). However, both the medical community and DOD now have a more thorough understanding of PTSD and its potential to serve as a causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct when the condition is not diagnosed and treated in a timely fashion. Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible re-characterization of their overall service even if the sexual assault or sexual harassment was unreported, or the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years later. g. Boards are to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part of mental health conditions, including PTSD. The veteran’s testimony alone, oral or written, may establish the existence of a condition or experience, that the condition or experience existed during or was aggravated by military service, and that the condition or experience excuses or mitigates the discharge. h. In regards to the applicant's contention that his characterization of service should have been updated 6-months after his discharge. The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits an application to either the Army Discharge Review Board or the ABCMR requesting change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the ABCMR determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established that require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge. i. During the applicant's era of service, commanders could initiate separation action, under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200, against Soldiers who had committed a serious military offense, and a punitive discharge was among the maximum punishments for a comparable UCMJ violation. j. The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans' benefits. 20. 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. 21. 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 service record indicates he completed a separation physical and mental status evaluation. He was cleared for administrative separation which indicates he met retention standards IAW AR 40-501. The applicant asserts PTSD and other mental health were issues were factors in his misconduct. A review of JLV indicates the applicant has a service connected disability rating of 70% for PTSD effective 28 Mar 2019. 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. Under liberal guidance, PTSD is a mitigating factor for the misconduct that led to his discharge. 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) Yes (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? (a) Yes BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that partial relief was 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 deny relief based on his numerous instances of misconduct during his enlistment and no evidence for clemency consideration. 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. Under liberal guidance, PTSD is a mitigating factor for the misconduct that led to his discharge. 2. The Board determined there was sufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors to overcome the misconduct. The applicant accepts responsibility for his actions and was remorseful with his application, demonstrating he understands his actions were not that of all Soldiers. The Board noted that his misconduct does not warrant an upgrade to a fully honorable discharge. The Board agreed to grant clemency in the form of an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : X X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING X : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period ending 26 February 1986 to show his characterization of service as an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions discharge too honorable. 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): N/A REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 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 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Title 10, United State Code, section 1556 provides the Secretary of the Army shall ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency (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. 3. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. An honorable discharge was separation with honor. Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate was appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would clearly be inappropriate. Where there were infractions of discipline, commanders were to consider the extent thereof, as well as the seriousness of the offense. An honorable discharge could be furnished when disqualifying entries in the Soldier's military record was outweighed by subsequent honest and faithful service over a greater period of time. It was the pattern of behavior, and not the isolated instance, which commanders should consider as the governing factor. b. A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Paragraph 14-12c applied to Soldiers who had committed a serious military or civilian offense where the specific circumstances warranted separation and the UCMJ authorized a punitive (i.e. bad conduct or dishonorable) discharge. 4. The Military Whistleblower Protection Act was first enacted on 29 September 1988 (5 months after the applicant's separation); this Act provided that no member of the military would be restricted from communicating with a member of Congress or an Inspector General (IG) when that communication involved the disclosure of law violations, mismanagement, gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. In addition, the law prohibited retaliatory personnel actions against any member who made or had prepared make, such a communication. 5. Title 31, U.S. Code, section 3702, also known as the Barring Statute, prohibits the payment of a claim against the Government unless the claim has been received by the Comptroller General within 6 years after the claim accrues. Among the important public policy considerations behind statutes of limitations, including the 6-year limitation for filing claims contained in this section of Title 31, U.S. Code, is relieving the Government of the need to retain, access, and review old records for the purpose of settling stale claims, which are often difficult to prove or disprove. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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) AR20210016051 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1