IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 February 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220003967 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect: •reconsideration of his previous request for upgrade of his (general) underhonorable conditions discharge to honorable •in effect, physical disability retirement •overturn Article 15 (UCMJ) Uniform Code of Military Justice •restoration of rank to private first class/E-3 APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: •DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) - Online •medical records •chronological record of medical care, 28 October 1990 •separation packet •psychological test report, July 1999 •clinical record •Narrative Summary, 17 September 1991 •psychological evaluation •clinical record •self-authored statement •DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) •Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, 7 July 2000 •VA Rating Decision, 27 February 2017 FACTS: 1.Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in theprevious consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction ofMilitary Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20120013545 on 14 February 2013. 2.The applicant states his previous application to the Board did not obtain all of theevidence to support the upgrade nor the other rationale involved. Claimant was wronglyassigned a personality disorder character. Evidence attached indicates his medical condition was aggravated by military service, and that he was temporarily affected by loss of mental reason at the time of the incident for which the Article 15 was assigned. The conditions of the time are extremely similar to those encountered by those individuals having mental conditions while serving in combat theaters in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the like since 7 January 1991. a. The state of does not choose to recognize general under honorable conditions discharges for the purposes of awarding disabled veteran benefits afforded by the state of at this time. In addition, he has acquired evidence of the rationale of why the discharge should be upgraded. He reserves the right to litigate the matter under 42 USC Section 1983, as he believes that his constitutional rights are being undermined by these negative decision and laws. b. In a self-authored letter he states, while the evidence he has submitted points to the era of bad paper discharges that occurred during the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns, he respectfully submits that the evidence he has provided to the Board, along with the standards to be used for the determinations, shows that bad paper discharges occurred even prior to his service in the United States Army. The events that occurred in his time of service, and beyond, point to a pattern of conduct that has originated long before his enlistment on 2 October 1989. c. Because of that pattern, and because the evidence he submits exposes that he is one of the military members that the pattern has involved in the practice of less than honorable discharges without the service member undergoing full spectrum mental health evaluations, which could have put him before the MEB (medical evaluation board) and PEB (physical evaluation board) and put him out of the services under a more favorable characterization and given him better mental health treatment right from the outset. He has suffered irreparable harm to his person and to his reputation, which he might only be responsible in a very small way for, the United States Army could be charged for the miscarriage of soldier who chose to sign over their lives and their honor for the hope that the United States would carry on as a beacon for the world. d. However, given that he was able to eventually achieve some of the repair to his health via the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, and that his case is used, minus the personal identifying information, to assist in the training and education of various medical providers in the proper care and treatment of human beings who pay extraordinary costs to ensure the survival of the Constitution of the United States, per the VA Notice of Privacy Practices, the final remedy for the miscarriage of justice in his affair is the upgrading of his discharge and the provision of the other relief he has petitioned for in his application. e. In addition, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides that life, liberty, and property cannot be confiscated without the due process of law. The various Civil Rights Acts provide for equality to all under the laws, regardless of any one class characteristic, including medical condition. He is more than delighted to submit all the evidence and this brief to a United States District Court under 42 USC Section 1983, should that be required, which it will be should the Board choose to not act favorably upon his petition. After all, even if the youngsters have their bad paper discharges addressed to remedy their inequities suffered, older Soldiers, retired and otherwise, by whatever reason, are entitled to the same remedies. 3.The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 October 1989. He held militaryoccupational specialty 11B (Infantryman). 4.On 1 November 1990, he underwent a mental status evaluation. The psychiatristchecked the block indicating the applicant had the mental capacity to understand andparticipate in the proceedings. He diagnosed the applicant with "Personality Disorder,mixed with borderline, narcissistic, histrionic and antisocial features, severe." He saidthis condition was a deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior of long durationwhich interferes with the Soldier's ability to perform his duty. The disorder was sosevere that the Soldiers ability to function in the military environment was significantlyimpaired. The psychiatrist recommended the applicant be discharged in accordancewith Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel),chapter 5-13 (Separation because of personality disorder). He further stated theapplicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriateby the command. 5.On 19 November 1990, he underwent a medical examination in which the medicaldoctor indicated that he was qualified for separation. 6.A DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) shows on 14December 1990, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of theUCMJ, for intentionally injuring himself by cutting his wrist with a knife on 28 October1990. a.He was reduced to private second class/E-2 and was to forfeit $189.00 pay(suspended if not vacated before 14 March 1991). He was also placed on restriction for 7 days and required to perform extra duty for 7 days. b.The applicant’s commander directed the original DA Form 2627 be filed in therestricted fiche of the applicant’s official military personnel file (OMPF). The applicant did not appeal. 7.On 17 December 1990, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent torecommend his separation from the Army UP of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c,intentionally injuring himself for the purpose of avoiding his service as an enlisted person. The applicant acknowledged receipt on 17 December 1990. 8.On 18 December 1990, the applicant consulted with military counsel. After beingadvised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects and the rightsavailable to him, he elected not to submit a statement in his behalf. He acknowledgedthat he understood that he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if ageneral discharge was issued to him. He further understood that, as the result ofissuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, he may be ineligible formany or all benefits as a veteran under both federal and state laws and that he mightexpect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. 9.On 19 December 1990, his chain of command recommended that he be separationprior to the expiration of his term of service for commission of a serious offense and thathe receive a General Discharge Certificate. 10.On 26 December 1990, the separation authority approved the recommendation fordischarge UP of AR 635-200, chapter 14-12c and directed the issuance of a GeneralDischarge Certificate. 11.On 7 January 1991, he was discharged with a general under honorable conditionscharacter of service UP of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c. His DD Form 214 shows initem 28: Misconduct – Commission of a Serious Offense. His DD Form 214 also showshe completed 1 year, 3 months, and 6 days of net active service this period. 12.In his previous request (AR20120013545) on 14 February 2013, the Boardconsidered his application under procedures established by the Secretary of the Armyand determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of aprobable error or injustice. The Board denied his request. 13.The applicant provided medical records to support his claim. a.Chronological record of medical care, 28 October 1990, showing he was admittedto psychiatry for a self-inflicted cut on his left arm. b.Psychological test report, July 1999 which states in part diagnosis of paranoidschizophrenia, severe anxiety disorder, and depressive personality characteristics. c.Narrative Summary, 17 September 1991, which states in part diagnosis ofschizophrenic disorder, paranoid type. d.Psychological evaluation showing he was admitted on 31 July 1991 from theHennepin County Medical Center subsequent to his taking an overdose of 150, 200 mg. tablets of Ativan. e.VA Rating Decision, 7 July 2000, showing service connection for paranoidschizophrenia was granted with an evaluation of 100 percent effective 30 August 1999. f.VA Rating Decision, 27 February 2017, showing his rated disabilities as: •dysthymia, personality disorder rated at 0% •schizophrenia with anxiety (previously rated as paranoid schizophrenia) ratedat 100% effective 30 August 1999 •schizophrenia with anxiety previously diagnosed as paranoid schizophreniarated at 100% effective 10 December 2016 14.There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Boardwithin the board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 15.The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time ofdischarge, which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The Army disabilityrating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career. The VA does nothave authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service. TheVA may compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. 16.Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensationfor disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However,an award of a VA rating does not establish an error or injustice on the part of the Army. 17.Title 38, CFR, Part IV is the VA's schedule for rating disabilities. The VA awardsdisability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditionsdetected after discharge. As a result, the VA, operating under different policies, mayaward a disability rating where the Army did not find the member to be unfit to performhis duties. Unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or herlifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinationsand findings. 18.MEDICAL REVIEW: a.The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting reconsideration of previousrequest for upgrade of his general discharge to honorable; in effect, physical disability retirement; overturn Article 15, UCMJ; restoration of rank to PFC/E-3. b.The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMRRecord of Proceedings (ROP). Pertinent to this advisory are the following: (1)ROP incorporates previous ABCMR consideration under Docket NumberAR20120013545 on 14 February 2013. (2)Veteran asserts he was wrongly assigned a personality disorder character;evidence indicates his medical condition was aggravated by military service andthat he was temporarily affected by loss of mental reason at the time for whichthe Article 15 was assigned. (3)Applicant asserts numerous conditions which he believes should apply to hiscase, as outlined in ROP. (4)Applicant enlisted in the RA on 2 October 1989. (5)On 1 November 1990 he underwent a mental status evaluation. Applicant wasdiagnosed with “Personality Disorder, mixed with borderline, narcissistic,histrionic, and antisocial features, severe” and he was recommended forseparation via AR 635-200 Chapter 5-13 (personality disorder). (6)On 19 November 1990 he completed a medical separation in which he wasfound qualified for separation. (7)DA Form 2627 shows on 14 December 1990 he accepted NJP under Article 15for intentionally injuring himself by cutting his wrist with a knife on 28 October1990. He was reduced to E-2. (8)On 17 December 1990, his commander notified applicant of intent to recommendseparation via AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, intentionally injuring himself forthe purpose of avoiding service. (9)On 7 January 1991 he was discharged with a general under honorable conditionscharacter of service via AR 635-200 paragraph 14-12c for Misconduct,Commission of a Serious Offense. (10)His previous request to the ABCMR was denied, with the Board finding noevidence of probable error or injustice. (11)He provides numerous medical records in support of his claim, summarized inthe ROP and elaborated in more detail as relevant below. c.Supporting Documents All supporting documents reviewed. Lack of citation or discussion in this section should not be interpreted as lack of consideration. Provided medical records were reviewed in the ROP and are available for the Board’s review. Medical Prescreening Form dated 31 August 1989 was void of significant concerns prior to his enlistment. His enlistment physical documentation (8 September 1989) was unremarkable, and there was no mention of a history of psychiatric or behavioral concerns. While on Active Duty he was admitted for inpatient psychiatric care 28 October 1990 for self-inflicted laceration to wrist. SF600 entry dated 28-31 October 1990 reflects admission to psychiatry with surgical repair and cast following arm laceration; recommended follow up with orthopedics and Chapter 5-13 separation. Additional entries reference follow-up care for his injuries (flexor tendon left forearm). Psychiatry entry dated 26 November 1990 references recommendation for Chapter 5-13 separation, “what will happen is not yet clear.” An extensive evaluation at the VA from a 31 July to 16 September 1991 admission indicates a history of learning disability, low intellectual functioning (referred to at the time as “trainable mental retardation”), behavioral problems, and self-mutilation. He was admitted for an attempted overdose on psychotropic medication. The evaluation references prior engagement with mental health in 1985 after he apparently “tried to strangulate a fellow student” (while attending college), at which time he was started on an antipsychotic medication. Evaluation also referenced a prior pediatric neurology evaluation at approximately age 6 (1972) in which he was characterized as having “developmental delay” and was “diagnosed as mentally retarded.” Social history includes behavioral problems from the age of 18 months, a diagnosis of autism, and a stroke in childhood that left him briefly paralyzed (all per mother’s reports). Prior psychologists from his time in college (~1985) were contacted and characterized him as “strange and scary by many fellow students….had few appropriate social skills…had bizarre mannerisms such as meowing like a cat often” and that applicant had a delusional system “involving thoughts the patient was an alien and had something surgically implanted in him.” His college psychologists also reported “he seemed to have psychotic thoughts, mostly when under stress. He hurt himself deliberately while at , as he did in the military.” At the time of this evaluation, he was diagnosed with dysthymia; pervasive developmental disorder (advisor’s note: a classification which includes autism spectrum disorder) and possible neurobiological disorder; and possible schizotypal personality disorder with borderline features. The evaluation also notes “in light of the information reported from College mental health providers, a more malignant psychotic process such as schizophrenia versus schizotypal condition is possible.” A psychological evaluation (date unclear) referenced applicant’s belief “that his perceptual functions are different, if not superior, compared to other people…he said that at one time he believed that there was a computer implanted in his brain which was controlling his thoughts…he revealed persecutory ideation involving former military colleagues…test results indicate that Mr. reality testing is grossly deficient.” He was diagnosed with schizophrenia, paranoid type. Clinical Record dated 28 February 1992 references completion of updated testing, with prior testing leading to diagnoses of borderline personality disorder (8/91) and paranoid schizophrenia (10/91, which appears to be the evaluation referenced immediately above). At the time of this evaluation in February 1992, he was again diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Inpatient Psychiatry Psychological Evaluation (date unclear, presumed to be the 8/91 evaluation referenced above) concluded “his past behavior and current presentation…clearly meets criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder, but in light of information reported from College mental health providers, a more malignant psychotic process, such as a schizophrenic condition, is possible.” Clinical Record/Narrative Summary dated 17 October 1991 references admission to Day Hospital on 17 September 1991 and includes diagnosis of schizophrenic disorder, paranoid type. Psychological Test Report from July 1999 references self-reports of “previous emotional problems” growing up which were aggravated by service, ultimately with diagnosis of schizophrenia, paranoid type. He had been under psychiatric care since 1991. He completed multiple empirically based psychometric testing instruments to include two gold-standard personality inventories, the MMPI-2 and the MCMI-III. He was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and severe anxiety disorder. Psychiatric Compensation and Rating Exam dated 13 June 2000 references past diagnosis of chronic paranoid schizophrenia in 1992 by the same provider opining in 2000. “The question is raised as to whether the service medical records and VA Medical Center records indicate it is likely as not that the psychosis manifested during active duty or within one year following active duty. The answer to this question is yes.” Diagnostic formulation includes “chronic paranoid schizophrenia and psychosis remains active in spite of ongoing treatment.” Various VA Rating Decision documents reviewed and appreciated, as is the Report of Mental Status Evaluation dated 1 November 1990. Prior ABCMR proceedings (14 February 2013) indicate his discharge was found proper and equitable. No medical advisory was noted in the proceedings. d.AHLTA The Army electronic medical record, AHLTA, was not reviewed; it was not an existing EMR at the applicant’s time of service. e.JLV Available VA records were reviewed via JLV. Records indicate applicant has a service connection for psychosis, schizophrenia paranoid (100%) and forearm muscle injury (10%). His VA mental health records are exhaustive and will not be summarized in their entirety. His most recent mental health contact at the time of this review was 24 January 2023 and references diagnoses of both paranoid schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorder. Social history from this encounter referenced behavior problems since early childhood to include difficulty reading social cues and bizarre behavior, and a history of paranoid delusions since at least early adulthood. He also has a history of homelessness, with extensive involvement in the Health Care for Homeless Veterans program noted in 2013. Kurta Questions: 1.Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience that mayexcuse or mitigate a discharge? Yes. The applicant asserts mental health conditionsassociated with the circumstances of his discharge, and records indicated he is100% service connected for schizophrenia, paranoid type. He has a well-established diagnosis of schizophrenia throughout his records dating back to 1991after his military discharge in January 1991. 2.Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. Theapplicant’s assertion is supported by his service connection for schizophrenia,paranoid type, and records indicated diagnosis within the first several months afterhis discharge. 3.Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes.The applicant asserts mitigation due to mental health factors at the time of hisoffense/discharge, and he has been awarded 100% VA service connection forschizophrenia. a.The case should be referred to IDES to determine the merits of his claimregarding medical discharge/disability retirement. Although there is noevidence that the diagnosis of personality disorder was grossly in errorgiven the evidence available to the evaluating provider at the time,applicant’s subsequent diagnosis of schizophrenia after extensive evaluation (within several months of his discharge in January 1991) suggests that the behaviors at the time of service were symptomatic of schizophrenia or other psychotic-spectrum process that appears to predate his military service. Schizophrenia is a medically unfitting condition per AR 40-501. Psychosis (especially in a prodromal phase prior to full onset of schizophrenia) and developmental disorders - of which there is also substantial evidence in the record - often have symptoms consistent with those of a personality disorder; such diagnoses are often very difficult to differentiate without substantial psychosocial and developmental history which may have been lacking or unavailable at the time of his Army diagnosis. b.It is the BH advisor’s opinion that an act of self-harm of such severity isoften part of the natural history and sequelae of schizophrenia. It is not anact of misconduct, and as such should not be punished under UCMJand/or lead to an Article 15, even if discharge from service is indicated(which it clearly was in this applicant’s case). Significantdevelopmental/psychiatric concerns existed prior to service, and there isevidence to suggest he did not meet induction standards had all therelevant data been made known/available at the time of enlistment. Hisrequest for upgrade to honorable discharge is warranted under SecretarialAuthority. c.Finally, given his level of psychiatric impairment and the clear nexus withhis misconduct, his requests for restoration of rank and overturning of theArticle 15 both appear warranted. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1.After review of the application and all evidence, the Board found partial relief iswarranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documentssubmitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard reviewbased on law, policy and regulation. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, availablemilitary records and the medical review, the Board concurred with the advisory officialfinding the applicant’s case should be referred to IDES to determine the merits of hisclaim regarding medical discharge/disability retirement. Although there is no evidencethat the diagnosis of personality disorder was grossly in error given the evidenceavailable to the evaluating provider at the time, applicant’s subsequent diagnosis ofschizophrenia after extensive evaluation. Based upon the preponderance of theevidence, the Board agreed the applicant’s record should be referred to the Office of the Surgeon General for medical evaluation consideration, with all relief dependent upon a final medical determination. 2.The Board determined DES compensates an individual only for service incurredcondition(s) which have been determined to disqualify him or her from further militaryservice. The DES has neither the role nor the authority to compensate servicemembers for anticipated future severity or potential complications of conditions whichwere incurred or permanently aggravated during their military service; or which did notcause or contribute to the termination of their military career. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF X X X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION Evaluation Board (MEB) convened to determine whether the applicant’s condition(s), to include [applicable conditions], met medical retention standards at the time of service separation. a.In the event that a formal physical evaluation board (PEB) becomesnecessary, the individual concerned will be issued invitational travel orders to prepare for and participate in consideration of her case by a formal PEB. All required reviews and approvals will be made subsequent to completion of the formal PEB. b.Should a determination be made that the applicant should have beenseparated under the DES, these proceedings will serve as the authority to void his administrative separation and to issue him the appropriate separation retroactive to his original separation date, with entitlement to all back pay and allowances and/or retired pay, less any entitlements already received Microsoft Office Signature Line... for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. a.Paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honorand entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b.Paragraph 3-7 states a general discharge is a separation from the Army underhonorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a member whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 2.AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), set forththe policies for the disposition of Soldiers found unfit because of physical disability toreasonably perform the duties of his/her office, grade, rank, or rating. Paragraph 4-24b(3) states separation for physical disability with severance pay (10 USC 1203 or1206). a.Paragraph 3-1 states that the mere presence of a medical impairment does not inand of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. The Soldier will not be declared physically unfit for military service because of disabilities known to exist at the time of the Soldier's acceptance for military service that have remained essentially the same in degree since acceptance and have not interfered with the Soldier's performance of effective military service. b.Paragraph 3-2 states disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired byreason of a service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and who can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service. c.Paragraph 4-17 states PEB's are established to evaluate all cases of physicaldisability equitability for the Soldier and the Army. It is a fact-finding board to investigate the nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable permanency of the disability of Soldiers who are referred to the board; to evaluate the physical condition of the Soldier against the physical requirements of the Soldier's particular office, grade, rank, or rating; to provide a full and fair hearing for the Soldier; and to make findings and recommendations to establish eligibility of a Soldier to be separated or retired because of physical disability. d.An award of a VA rating does not establish entitlement to medical retirement orseparation. The VA is not required to find unfitness for duty. Operating under its own policies and regulations, the VA awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service, i.e., service connected. The VA can evaluate a veteran throughout their lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. e.Appendix B, paragraph f of that regulations states conditions which do not rendera Soldier unfit for military service will not be considered in determining the compensable disability rating unless they contribute to the finding of unfitness. 3.AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), in effect at the time, provided medicalfitness standards of sufficient detail to ensure uniformity in medical evaluation of certainenlisted military occupational specialties and officer duty assignments in terms ofmedical conditions and physical defects which are causes for rejection or medicalunfitness for these specialized duties. Chapter 3 (Medical Fitness Standards forRetention and Separation, Including Retirement) states the various medical conditionsand physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military service.Soldiers with conditions listed in this chapter will be evaluated by a medical board andwill be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB). 4.Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of amember who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent.Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of amember who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating of less than 30percent. 5.Title 38, U.S. Code, section 1110 (General - Basic Entitlement) states for disabilityresulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or foraggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in theactive military, naval, or air service, during a period of war, the United States will pay toany veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions otherthan dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease wasincurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided inthis subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of theveteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 6.Title 38, U.S. Code, section 1131 (Peacetime Disability Compensation - BasicEntitlement) states for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or diseasecontracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or diseasecontracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service, during other than a period of war, the United States will pay to any veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 7. AR 27-10 (Military Justice) prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice. a. Chapter 3 implements and amplifies Article 15, UCMJ, and Part V, Manual for Courts-Martial. It states the decision whether to file a record of NJP in the performance folder of a Soldier's official military personnel file (OMPF) rests with the imposing commander at the time punishment is imposed. b. Paragraph 3-43 contains guidance for transfer or removal of records of NJP from the OMPF. Applications for removal of a DA Form 2627 from the OMPF based on an error or injustice will be made to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). It further indicates there must be clear and compelling evidence to support removal of a properly-completed, facially-valid DA Form 2627 from a Soldier's record by the ABCMR. 8. AR 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records (AMHRR) Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the AMHRR. Paragraph 3-6 provides that once a document is properly filed in the OMPF, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the ABCMR or other authorized agency. Appendix B (Documents Authorized for Filing in the AMHRR and/or iPERMS) of AR 600-8-104 and the U.S. Army Human Resources Command website provide a listing of documents authorized for filing in iPERMS. A DA Form 2627 will be filed in the performance or restricted folder of the OMPF as directed by the issuing commander (item 5 on the DA Form 2627). Allied documents accompanying the DA Form 2627 will be filed in the restricted folder. 9. 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, on those conditions or experiences. 10.On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readinessissued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction ofMilitary/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemencydeterminations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminalsentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum.However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, whichmay be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. This guidance does notmandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs inapplication of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on thebasis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospectfor rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severityof misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmentalacknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity ofpunishment. 11.Section 1556 of Title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of the Army toensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency(ARBA) be provided with a copy of any correspondence and communications (includingsummaries of verbal communications) to or from the Agency with anyone outside theAgency that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except asauthorized by statute. ARBA medical advisory opinions and reviews are authored byARBA civilian and military medical and behavioral health professionals and aretherefore internal agency work product. Accordingly, ARBA does not routinely providecopies of ARBA Medical Office recommendations, opinions (including advisoryopinions), and reviews to Army Board for Correction of Military Records applicants(and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//