IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 12 October 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220011401


APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of his characterization of service from under 
honorable conditions (general) to honorable.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), 22 July 2022
*	DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge), 22 July 2022
*	Notification Letter from Department of Veteran Affairs, 12 May 2022
*	Self-Authored Statement, 18 September 2017

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, US 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 file timely.

2.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement in which he states:

	a.  He has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and multiple 
service-connected disabilities from his military service. He asserts that these service-
connected mental health issues contributed to his receiving an under honorable 
conditions discharge from the military. Due to his current characterization of service, he 
cannot transfer educational benefits to his children and attests that this will affect their 
future. He is requesting consideration to upgrade the characterization of service. 

	b.  While assigned to Fort Lewis/McCord Base, he deployed to Kabul, Afghanistan, 
in 2011. He proclaims that he suffered from severe anxiety, paranoia, sleeplessness, 
and OCD. The following events occurred during the deployment:

		(1)  While conducting a routine mission, his team encountered an Improvised 
Explosive Device (IED), which was called in to the Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) 
team and cleared. He recalls that his vehicle cleared safely, but the vehicle behind him 
did not clear the IED safely, which resulted in one fatality. 
		(2)  He then explains he had concerning mental and physical symptoms that 
caused him to see a Physician Assistant (PA), who diagnosed him with ADHD and 
prescribed him medication (Adderall). After seeing five months of no improvement, he 
followed up with the PA and received instruction that the side effects were either tied to 
the loss of sleep or that there was an adjustment period for medication to work properly.

		(3)  While taking the prescribed medication, he states he unintentionally and 
unprovoked negligently discharged an M-50 Caliber Crew Serve weapon. He asserts 
that no one was harmed, but he voluntarily relieved himself as Section Chief and 
stopped taking the prescribed medication.

	c.  Upon his return from deployment, he returned to an abandoned home, wherein 
his wife abandoned their home with their infant child. His home was neglected, deserted 
and there were unpaid debts with only $500 left in his bank account.

	d.  The applicant was reassigned to Fort Bragg in 2012. The application explains 
that while enduring serious marriage troubles and mental health issues, he was still 
fulfilling his military duties, including responsibilities as a sergeant (SGT)/E-5 while 
being a specialist (SPC)/E-4. While assigned to Fort Bragg the applicant describes the 
following incident that led to his discharge: 

		(1)  On or about New Year's Eve 2013, he had an incident that involved him not 
properly disposing of ammunition cans, NVG cases, smoke, and grenade canisters. The 
applicant states that he was not provided proper guidance on properly disposing of the 
materials and took the materials to his home on base, where the intentions were to 
throw the materials away in dumpsters around the base.

		(2)  Around the same time, he struggled emotionally due to his family issues, 
which preceded an altercation where his behavior was described as manic. He attended 
a party where he had been drinking; he went back home and grabbed an empty smoke 
grenade canister and returned to the party. The altercation ensued and resulted in him 
being chased by law enforcement back home and arrested, shortly after was committed 
to a psychiatric ward for three weeks, where he was informed that he had OCD, anxiety, 
and ADHD.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 April 2010. He held military 
occupational specialty 13D, Field Artillery Automation. He was promoted to private first 
class/E-3 on 5 April 2011 and to specialist (SPC)/E-4 on 5 April 2012. 

4.  The applicant served in Afghanistan from 30 March 2012 through 26 November 
2012. After his deployment, he was reassigned to Fort Bragg, NC on 13 June 2013. 

5.  On or about 19 June 2014, the applicant's immediate commander notified the 
applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army 
Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 
14-12c, for misconduct - commission of a serious offense. The immediate commander 
recommended his service be characterized as general (under honorable conditions) and 
advised him of his rights. The specific reasons: 

*	on or about 11 May 2014, he fled apprehension
*	on or about 11 May 2014, he was drunk and disorderly
*	and on or about 11 May 2014, he assaulted [Individual] with an M83 smoke 
grenade.

6. On 25 June 2014, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's intent to 
separate him. He declined the opportunity to speak with legal counsel. Nevertheless, he 
was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation for misconduct, the type of 
discharge he could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the 
possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights that were available to 
him. He indicated that he understood:

*	He could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general 
discharge was issued to him
*	He could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under Federal and 
State laws as a result of the issuance of an under other than honorable 
conditions discharge
*	He could submit a person statement but elected not to do so

7.  After the applicant’s acknowledgement, the applicant's immediate commander 
formally initiated separation action against him in accordance with AR 635-200, 
paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct - commission of a serious offense. The intermediate 
commander recommended approval with issuance of a general discharge. 

8.  On 26 June 2014, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under 
the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14, by reason of misconduct - commission of a 
serious offense and directed his service be characterized as under honorable conditions 
(general). On 17 July 2014, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

9.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty) 
confirms he was discharged under AR 635-200, chapter 14-12c, by reason of 
misconduct - commission of a serious offense with a character of service of under 
honorable conditions (general), Separation Code JKQ, Reentry Code 3. This form 
further confirms he completed 4 years, 3 months, and 13 days of active service. His 
DD Form 214 shows he was awarded or authorized the:

*	Afghanistan Campaign Medal with campaign star
*	Army Commendation Medal
*	Army Good Conduct Medal
*	National Defense Service Medal
*	Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
*	Army Service Ribbon
*	NATO Medal
*	Driver/Mechanic Badge 

10.  On 11 June 2019, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed his 
discharge and found it proper and equitable. The ADRB denied the applicant's request 
for a change in the character and/or reason of his discharge.  

11.  On 18 January 2023, after careful review of hisapplication, military records, and all 
other available evidence, the ADRB determined that the applicant was properly and 
equitably discharged. Accordingly, his request for a change in the characterization of 
service and/or narrative reason of his discharge was denied.

12.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

    a.  Background: The applicant is requesting an upgrade of his characterization of 
service from under honorable conditions (general) to honorable. He contends PTSD 
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 5 April 2010. 
*	On or about 19 June 2014, the applicant's immediate commander notified the 
applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with 
Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct - commission 
of a serious offense. The specific reasons: 
*	on or about 11 May 2014, he fled apprehension
*	on or about 11 May 2014, he was drunk and disorderly
*	and on or about 11 May 2014, he assaulted [Individual] with an M83 smoke 
grenade.
*	The applicant was discharged on 17 July 2014. The applicant’s DD Form 214 
confirms he was discharged under AR 635-200, chapter 14-12c, by reason of 
misconduct - commission of a serious offense with a character of service of 
under honorable conditions (general).

    c.  The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor 
reviewed this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s completed DD 
Form 149, his ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), DD Form 293, DD Form 214, VA 
rating letter, self-authored statement, and documents from his service record and 
separation packet. The VA electronic medical record and DoD health record were 
reviewed through Joint Longitudinal View (JLV). Lack of citation or discussion in this 
section should not be interpreted as lack of consideration. 
    d.  The applicant reports being diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 
(PTSD) and multiple service-connected disabilities from his military service. He asserts 
that these service-connected mental health issues contributed to his receiving an under 
honorable conditions discharge from the military. Due to his current characterization of 
service, he is unable to transfer educational benefits to his children and believes this will 
affect their future. He contends that his behavior was impacted by the adverse side 
effects of prescribed medication. Per the applicant, he was prescribed Adderall for 
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) during a deployment and the medication 
caused a shift in his mental health and personality. In addition, he was dealing with 
significant familial stressors and a perceived lack of support from the military 
community.  

    e.  The applicant’s electronic medical record indicates during the course of his military 
service he was diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder with panic attacks, ADHD, Depressive 
Disorder NOS, and Alcohol Dependence. During an initial behavioral health encounter 
on 27 June 2011, the applicant disclosed a lifelong history of anxiety with panic attacks, 
prior to military service, and was diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder. While deployed he 
was evaluated by behavioral health. A comprehensive psychiatric evaluation on 09 Jun 
2012, diagnosed him with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) due to his 
reported issues with attention and concentration. He was treated with Adderall, followed 
closely by medical staff, and reported an overall improvement in his quality of life and 
performance at work. The medication was discontinued 3 months later when the 
applicant reported concerns. The applicant’s record evidences ongoing engagement 
with behavioral health as well as enrollment in ASAP. He was psychiatrically 
hospitalized from 01 January 2014 to 03 January 2014 due to anxiety and suicidal 
ideation without intent or plan, related to familial stressors, and was provided with 
consistent behavioral health follow-up after his discharge from the hospital. The ongoing 
level of care the applicant was provided while in-service is inconsistent with his reported 
lack of support from the military community.
    f.  The applicant’s VA electronic medical record indicates he is 100% service 
connected for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). However, this is inconsistent with 
the applicant’s self-report during a mental health encounter on 11 February 2013, where 
it is noted: “During his deployment from 4 June 2012 thru 20 August 2012 SM was seen 
by CSC due to problems with concentration….SM clearly denies any "combat 
exposure".  
    g.  Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral 
Health Advisor that there is sufficient evidence that the applicant had a behavioral 
health condition during military service that partially mitigates his discharge. 
Kurta Questions:
    (1)  Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience that 
may excuse or mitigate a discharge? Yes. The applicant asserts a mitigating condition. 

    (2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The 
applicant is 100% service-connected for PTSD and his service treatment records 
indicate he was treated for Anxiety Disorder with panic attacks, ADHD, Depressive 
Disorder NOS, and Alcohol Dependence. 

    (3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
Partially. The applicant’s PTSD, Anxiety and Depression mitigate his drunk and 
disorderly offense given the nexus between PTSD/Anxiety/Depression and self-
medicating with substances.  However, PTSD, Depression, and Anxiety do not mitigate 
his fleeing apprehension and assault with a smoke grenade as there is no nexus 
between these offenses and the applicant’s behavioral health conditions. In addition, 
there is no indication that his misconduct was because of adverse side effects of 
Adderall. The clinical record indicates the applicant was closely monitored by medical 
staff and initially reported a positive response to Adderall. In addition, the medication 
was discontinued over 1 ½ years prior to his misconduct.


BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, 
evidence in the records, a medical review, and published Department of Defense 
guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered 
the applicant's statement, his record of service to include deployment, the frequency 
and nature of his misconduct and the reason for his separation. The Board considered 
the applicant's PTSD claim and the review and conclusions of the ARBA BH Advisor. 
The applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference 
in support of a clemency determination.

2.  A majority of the Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors 
and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official regarding his 
misconduct being only partially mitigated by behavioral health conditions.  Based on a 
preponderance of evidence, a majority of the Board determined the character of service 
the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust.

3.  The member in the minority found the applicant’s combat service, subsequent 
diagnoses of behavioral health conditions, and his statement regarding his domestic 
situation sufficient as a basis for relief under guidance for liberal consideration of 
discharge upgrade requests. The member in the minority determined the applicant’s 
character of service should be changed to honorable.


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:

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.




REFERENCES:

1.  Title 10, US Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of 
military records must be filed within 3 years after discovering 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 (AR) 635-200, in effect at the time, sets policies, standards, and 
procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the 
orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for various reasons. In addition, the 
guidance provides an orderly means to maintain standards of performance and conduct 
through the characterization of service in a system that emphasizes the importance of 
honorable service.

	a.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable 
characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service 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. 
Only the honorable characterization may be awarded to a Soldier upon completion of 
his/her enlistment period or the period called or ordered to AD or ADT or where required 
under specific reasons for separation unless an entry-level status separation 
(uncharacterized) is warranted. When a Soldier is discharged before ETS for a reason 
for which an honorable discharge is discretionary, such consideration as when there 
have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should be considered, as well as 
the seriousness of the offense (s). 

	b.  An under-honorable discharge is authorized to be issued to a Soldier whose 
military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable 
discharge. A characterization under honorable conditions may be issued only when the 
reason for separation specifically allows such characterization.

	c.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) is administrative 
separation from the service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for 
misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court-martial for 
circumstances such as deliberate acts or omissions that seriously endanger the health 
and safety of other persons.  A UOTHC will be directed by a commander exercising 
general court-martial authority.

	d.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating 
personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of 
misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion, 
and absence without leave.  When a Soldier has completed entry-level status or when a 
Soldier has demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with 
satisfactory continued service, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized 
unless the Soldier's records are otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization 
clearly would be inappropriate.

		(1)  14-3 - 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.

		(2)  14-12c(2) - Commission of a serious military or civil offense if the specific 
circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would 
be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the MCM.

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 24 February 2016, the Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for 
Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to waive the imposition of the statute of 
limitation for service members requesting discharge upgrades related to PTSD or TBI. 
Additionally, cases previously considered by either the DRBs, BCMRS, or BCNR 
without the benefit of the application of the Supplemental Guidance shall be, upon 
petition, granted de novo review utilizing the Supplemental Guidance.

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. 

	a.  This guidance does not mandate relief but provides standards and principles to 
guide Boards in the 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, the relative severity of the misconduct, mental and behavioral health 
conditions, an official governmental acknowledgment 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.

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//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20220011401


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1