IN THE CASE OF: 
 
  BOARD DATE: 8 August 2023 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220010263 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. 
 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
 
• DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) 

• DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge) 

• DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 

• Certificate of Achievement 

• Personal Statement 

• Character Reference/Letters of Support 


 
FACTS: 
 
1.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. 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 states he is requesting that his discharge be upgraded to where he can apply and receive Veterans Benefits and apply for a Federal Jobs at the nearby Army Installation, Fort Bragg, NC for better employment opportunities to support his family. At the time, he was stationed in Fort Sill, OK, attending the 13M military occupational specialty (MOS) for Multiple Launch Rocket System but it was cut short due to verbal abuse by some member of his chain of command. He was 20 years of age at the time, and he wanted to make the Army a career, but it was cut short. He was a young man then and did not know much. But he continued to look back on this incident, which has made him very depressed then and most definitely now. I did not have the assistance and support from some members of his chain command to continue MOS 13M training, even though he was ahead of his class. Not being able to complete MOS training has been very depressing and that is why the correction needs to be made. He was not given the opportunity to fulfill his military service and serve his country. The applicant marked “Other Mental Health” on his application. 
 
3.  In a separate statement, the applicant talks about basic combat training at Fort Sill and that after graduation, he took leave and upon return to start advanced individual training, he was placed on hold for a week, and then a second week. He approached the drill sergeant in an effort to understand. He was initially told to not worry about it, but upon insistence, the drill sergeant verbally and racially abused him and told him he did not belong. This was not reported to the chain of command, and he was told to just let it go. He again approached the sergeants and the lieutenant and told them to either send him to school or send hi home. He then went AWOL (absent without leave) for about 10 months. He then called the military police who picked him up and sent him for separation processing.  
 
4.  The applicant’s service record are not available for review. An exhaustive search was conducted to locate his service records which are necessary in the processing of this case. Unfortunately, they could not be found. However, the applicant provided a DD Form 214, which is sufficient to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.   
 
5.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows:  
 
 a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 October 1996. He was assigned to Fort Soll for training. He did not complete training and was not awarded an MOS.  
 
 b.  The complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge, including a Charge Sheet and separation packet, are not available. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 17 March 1998 under the provisions of chapter 10 (in lieu of trial by court-martial) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) with an “under other than honorable conditions” discharge. It also shows:  
 
• he completed 7 months and 10 days of active service 

• he had 305 days of lost time from 16 January 1997 to 17 November 1997  

• he had 116 days of excess leave from 22 November 1997 to 17 March 1998  

• he was assigned Separation Code KFS and Reentry Code 3 


 
6.  There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.  
 
7.  The applicant provides multiple character reference letters and/or letters of support from various relatives, friends, and others. The authors describe him as: 
 
• the best father anyone could ask for; he has the best character; he is a loving father who always puts is family first 


 
• he is active in the community by focusing on our American Indian Culture; he serves as a mentor to young American Indian males and provides them with sound advice on issue going on within their life 

• he is a man of integrity and honest; he is the kind of person who doesn't hesitate to help others when needed 

• he has outstanding work ethics and the ability to work with anyone on the team; he is a great asset to have in an employee and team member 

• he works in Army vehicle maintenance facility in direct support for and with the Soldiers; he is an excellent mechanic, respectful person and has built a great rapport with the Soldiers we support 

• he can always be counted on to get tasks completed in a timely manner, oft n on a short suspense due to last minute Army Training or upgraded requirements 

• his attitude, work ethic, mechanical knowledge and support to the mission has made him essential to this contract and to the Soldiers and missions 

• an honest and trustworthy individual, a family man who would often do odd jobs around her house when situations arose; has never hesitated to help anyone that needs assistance 

• a friendly and an easy-going man who understands the value of hard work and no matter what you ask him to do, he is always willing to help 


 
8.  By regulation (AR 635-200), a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 
 
9.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and her service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 
 
10.  MEDICAL REVIEW: 
 
    a.  Background: The applicant is requesting an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. He contends other mental health mitigates his discharge.  
    b.  The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP). Below is a summary of information pertinent to this advisory:  
• Applicant enlisted in the RA on 2 October 1996. He was assigned to Fort Sill for training. He did not complete training and was not awarded an MOS.  


• Applicant was discharged from active duty on 17 March 1998 under the provisions of chapter 10 (in lieu of trial by court-martial) of Army Regulation 635-200 with an “under other than honorable conditions” discharge, (Separation Code: KFS and Reentry Code 3). 

• The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge from the Army are not available for review.  


 
c.  Review of Available Records Including Medical: 
The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor reviewed this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s completed DD Form 293, ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), DD Form 214, personal statement, and letters of support. Despite an exhaustive search, the applicant’s service records are not available for review. No active-duty electronic medical records were available for review and no hard copy medical documentation from the time of service was submitted for review. In addition, no medical documentation post-military service of any mental health condition or diagnosis was submitted for review. The applicant is not service connected and there are no VA electronic medical records available for review. 
 
    d.  In his personal statement, the applicant reports he experienced verbal and racial abuse which played a role in him opting to go AWOL when he was reportedly placed on hold during AIT for an extended period of time. The applicant did not assert any BH condition as the reason for his AWOL. The applicant further reports feeling depressed when he looks back at his inability to complete military service and obtain post-military benefits. However, no separation packet was available to corroborate the reason for his discharge from military service and no medical documentation was submitted that substantiates the applicant has ever had any behavioral health diagnosis.  
 
    e.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, this Agency Behavioral Health Advisor cannot provide an opine regarding mitigation based on behavioral health diagnoses or condition without documentation of the specific misconduct that led to his discharge.  
Kurta Questions: 
    (1)  Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate a discharge? No. The applicant does not contend that any BH condition impacted his decision to go AWOL. 
 
    (2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? No. The applicant does not self-assert any BH condition during military service. 
 
    (3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No.  
The applicant reports that when he considers his actions and the impact of being unable to serve in the military or access benefits that would be available to him had he completed his service, he experiences feelings of depression. However, he is not asserting that any BH condition impacted his decision to go AWOL and no medical documentation is available that would allow for mitigation of his discharge from military service. Regardless, without documentation of the specific misconduct that led to his discharge, an opine regarding mitigation based on a BH condition cannot be provided. 
 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
 
After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. Although the specific court-martial charges are unknown, the evidence shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. 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. The Board concurred with the medical advisory opinion finding that the applicant is not asserting that any behavioral health condition impacted his decision to go AWOL and that there is no medical documentation that would allow for mitigation of his discharge from military service. Nevertheless, the applicant provided sufficient evidence of post-service achievements in the form of letters of reference/character reference letters in support of a clemency determination. This persuaded the Board that although the applicant’s service did not rise to the level required for an honorable characterization of service; a general discharge is appropriate under published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests, with no change to the reason for discharge and/or corresponding codes 
  
BOARD VOTE: 
 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
 
xx: xx: xx: GRANT FULL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
 
: : : DENY APPLICATION 
 
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 
 
The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing him a DD Form 214 for the period ending 17 March 1998 showing his character of service as Under Honorable Conditions, General. 
 
• Separation Authority: No Change 

• Separation Code: No Change 

• Reentry Code: No Change 

• Narrative Reason for Separation: No Change 


 
  8/8/2023

I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. 
 
  
REFERENCES: 
 
1.  Title 10, U.S. 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.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 
 
 a.  Paragraph 3-7a states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. 
 
 b.  Paragraph 3-7b states that 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. 
 
3.  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. 
 
4.  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; TBI; sexual assault; sexual harassment.  Boards were directed to consider Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part to those conditions or experiences.  The guidance further describes evidence sources 
and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for that misconduct which led to the discharge. 
 
5.  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.  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 based on 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.  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. 
 
6.  Section 1556 of Title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of the Army to ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) be provided with a copy of any correspondence and communications (including summaries of verbal communications) to or from the Agency with anyone outside the Agency that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute. ARBA medical advisory opinions and reviews are authored by ARBA civilian and military medical and behavioral health professionals and are therefore internal agency work product. Accordingly, ARBA does not routinely provide copies of ARBA Medical Office recommendations, opinions (including advisory opinions), and reviews to Army Board for Correction of Military Records applicants (and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication. 
 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//