IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 July 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220011628 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge (BCD) * his narrative reason for separation and related Separation Program Designator (SPD) code be changed from "Court-Martial, Other" and "JJD" to an unspecified reason and SPD code * his Reentry Eligibility (RE) code be changed from "4" to a more favorable code * correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) as "91W (Health Care Specialist) APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Verbatim Record of Trial, Volume I (266 pages) * Verbatim Record of Trial, Volume II (395 pages) * Character reference statements provided at the time of trial (12) * Letter from the applicant's mother to the Boston Regional Office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) * General Court-Martial Order Number 20, dated 10 October 2013 * Discharge Orders, dated 28 May 2015 * DD Form 214 for the period ending 3 June 2015 * Medical appointment history * Initial VA Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Questionnaire * Review of VA PTSD Questionnaire * Divorce Decrees (2) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), Section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. Through counsel, the applicant provides a statement that is available in its entirety for the Board's consideration. In effect, counsel contends the applicant should be granted the requested relief because he departed his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status because he was experiencing extreme stress following a combat tour in Iraq, a lack of understanding of his mental health situation which was subsequently diagnosed as PTSD, and a rapid sequence of family events that led to the dissolution of his first marriage and total estrangement from his first son. a. Prior to his AWOL, the applicant had a flawless record which included his award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) and the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) for his service in Iraq. Upon his unit's return from Iraq, most of the chain of command was disbanded and replaced. The applicant trusted his previous chain of command deeply because they got him through their deployment safely. He did not have the same level of confidence in the new chain of command. He began to experience thoughts of suicide and/or homicide on a regular basis. He impulsively departed his unit, not knowing what to do next, not wanting to hurt anyone, and uncertain about his own survivability. b. Only the command team who served with the applicant in combat were called as witnesses during his court-martial, and they all spoke highly of him. His family members and close friend submitted character statements attesting to his positive attributes and that they had noticed a change in him years before he sought treatment. c. After years of struggling with homelessness and family failures, he was encouraged to seek mental health service by immediate family. To this day, he avoids loud places, crowds, and the public at large. He is unable to participate with his young children in social settings, and continuously struggles with anger and mood instability. d. The applicant was eventually awarded 100 percent (%) disability by the VA due to severe PTSD. PTSD was clearly the precursor that led to his discharge. Current policies allow for liberal consideration for diagnosis of PTSD as a condition and grounds for granting clemency. He has been diligently committed to treatment since 2015 and does his best to maintain order and stability in his life. 3. On 6 May 2003, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years. He enlisted for training in MOS 91W. Upon completion of initial entry training, he was assigned to a unit located in South Korea. He was subsequently assigned to a unit at Fort Carson, CO, in duty MOS 91W and 68W (Combat Medic). He served in Iraq from 15 August 2004 until 22 July 2005. The highest rank/grade he held was specialist (SPC)/E-4. 4. On 2 February 2006, the applicant reenlisted in MOS 91W for a period of 4 years. 5. Permanent Orders show the applicant was awarded the AGCM for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity for the period of 6 May 2003 to 5 May 2006. 6. The applicant's duty status was changed from Present for Duty (PDY) to AWOL effective 7 July 2006 and from AWOL to Dropped from Rolls (DFR) effective 6 August 2006. Accordingly, he was reported as a deserter/absentee. 7. A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows charges were preferred against the applicant on 4 November 2010 for absenting himself from his unit without authority and with the intent to remain so absent permanently. 8. On 3 July 2012, the applicant surrendered to military authorities at Fort Hamilton, NY, and was returned to military control. His duty status was changed from DFR to PDY. 9. General Court-Martial Order Number 20 issued by Headquarters, Fort Carson, Fort Carson, CO on 10 October 2013 show the applicant was arraigned at Fort Carson, CO. a. He pled guilty and was found guilty of two specifications of violation of Article 85, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on or about 3 July 2006, for: * without authority and with intent to remain away, absenting himself from his unit and remaining so absent until on or about 3 July 2012 * with intent to avoid hazardous duty, namely deployment, quit his unit and remain so absent in desertion until on or about 3 July 2012 b. He was sentenced to reduction in rank/grade from SPC/E-4 to private (PV1)/E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 15 months, and a BCD. c. Only so much of the sentence extending to reduction to E-1, confinement for 9 months, and BCD was approved, and except for the portion of the sentence pertaining to the BCD was ordered to be executed. d. He was credited with 4 days of confinement credit. 10. The applicant was confined on 22 March 2013 to serve his period of confinement. 11. On 31 September 2013, the applicant declined his right to undergo a medical examination prior to his separation from active duty. 12. On 20 October 2013, the applicant was released from confinement and his duty status was changed to PDY. 13. The applicant was discharged on 3 June 2015. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 3, as a result of "Court-Martial, Other." His service was characterized as bad conduct with SPD "JJD" and RE Code "4." He was credited with completion of 5 years and 6 months of net active service this period, with lost time from 3 July 2006 until 2 July 2012 due to AWOL and from 22 March 2013 until 19 October 2013 due to confinement. He was credited with continuous honorable service from 6 May 2003 until 1 February 2006. a. Block 11 (Primary Specialty) contains the entry "91E1O ALLIED TRADE SPECIALIST – 9 YRS 5 MOS." b. Block 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) shows he was awarded or authorized the: * ARCOM * AGCM * National Defense Service Medal * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Korea Defense Service Medal * Iraq Campaign Medal with Campaign Star * Army Service Ribbon * Driver and Mechanic Badge with Mechanic Bar 14. The applicant's record is void of evidence showing he was diagnosed with PTSD or any other medical of behavioral health condition during his period of service. 15. In addition to the previously discussed evidence, counsel provides the following documents: a. Verbatim Record of Trial, Volumes I and II which contain the detailed account of the applicant's court-martial proceedings. b. Character reference statements provided at the time of trial by his former chain of command, former colleagues, family members, and acquaintances; all of whom provided favorable comments about him and most of whom reported detecting a noticeable change in his demeanor following his deployment to Iraq. The people with whom he served in Iraq attested to the atrocities they witnessed and the difficulty of coping with the loss of fellow Soldiers, particularly for those who served as medical personnel like the applicant. c. A letter rendered by the applicant's mother to the VA, Boston Regional Office on 22 October 2018, wherein she describes the drastic changes in her son’s personality and demeanor that resulted from his service in combat and marital problems. d. A listing of the dates of his medical appointments at Baystate Health from 24 November 2015 through 6 October 2022. e. An Initial VA, PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire, rendered on 7 December 2016 which shows, in part, the applicant's mental disorder diagnosis at the time was PTSD Chronic Severe. He had no other mental disorder or traumatic brain injury (TBI) diagnosis at the time. f. A review of VA PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire, rendered on 5 June 2019 which shows, in part, the applicant had been diagnosed with PTSD and lists the symptoms that led to this diagnosis. g. Two court documents showing the applicant was divorced from his first wife on 8 April 2014 and his second wife on 31 August 2017. 16. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition, arguments and assertions, and service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency guidance. 17. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. In accordance with Title 10, USC, Section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the ABCMR is not empowered to set aside a conviction. Rather, it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy or instance of leniency to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. 18. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge (BCD) and his narrative reason for separation and related Separation Program Designator (SPD) code be changed. Also, he requests his Reentry Eligibility (RE) code be changed to a more favorable code. He contends he had mental health conditions to include PTSD that mitigated his misconduct. b. The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP). Pertinent to this advisory are the following: 1) The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 May 2003; 2) He served in Iraq from 15 August 2004-22 July 2005; 3) On 2 February 2006, the applicant reenlisted for a period of 4 years; 4) The applicant was found AWOL on 7 July 2006, and he was reported as a deserter/absentee a month later; 5) Charges were preferred against the applicant on 4 November 2010 for absenting himself from his unit without authority and with the intent to remain so absent permanently; 6) On 3 July 2012, the applicant surrendered to military authorities; 7) General Court-Martial Order Number 20 on 10 October 2013 shows the applicant pled guilty and was found guilty of two specifications of violation of Article 85 for: A) without authority and with intent to remain away, absenting himself from his unit and remaining so absent until 3 July 2012, B) with intent to avoid hazardous duty, namely deployment, quit his unit and remain so absent in desertion until 3 July 2012. He was sentenced to reduction in rank/grade, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 15 months, and a BCD; 8) The applicant was discharged on 3 June 2015, Chapter 3, as a result of "Court-Martial, Other." His service was characterized as bad conduct with SPD "JJD" and RE Code "4." c. The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s military service and medical records. The Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), VA’s Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), Verbatim Record of Trial, Volume I and II, Character reference statements, VA support documents, and civilian hardcopy behavioral health records were also examined. d. A review of the applicant’s application to ABCMR stated the applicant was suffering from thoughts of suicide and/or homicide regularly, and he was unaware that he was experiencing severe PTSD. As a result, he impulsively deserted his unit, and his misconduct should be mitigated. A review of the applicant’s active service medical record reveled he attended behavioral health treatment for erectile dysfunction in November 2005. At the time, he reported a positive relationship with his wife. However, he admitted she had a history of methamphetamine addiction and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. He also described sleeping 6 hours a night with using Benadryl to assist with falling asleep. He also reported high irritability, one nightmare a week, and occasional depression. He denied any suicidal or homicidal thoughts. He was referred to a clinical psychologist to for additional treatment for his erectile dysfunction. During this appointment, he reported not experiencing anxiety or depression, and he was provided behavioral therapy directed at improving his erectile disorder and instructed to follow-up in three weeks or sooner if necessary. He was seen again in December 2005 by a psychiatrist for increased sleep problems. He reported increased stress and anxiety as his wife was using methamphetamine while pregnant. He was diagnosed with a partner relational problem, unspecified anxiety disorder, and an erectile disorder. He was prescribed an antidepressant and sleep medication and provided sleep hygiene exercises. The applicant continued with medication management with this psychiatrist intermittently. At that time, he declined psychotherapy on post, but he stated he would explore treatment off post. There were medical records of the applicant contacting his psychiatrist in January 2005 and March 2006 for refills of his medication. He denied suicidal or homicidal ideation on each encounter. On 07 April 2006, the applicant came in as a walk-in appointment due to stress related to relationship problems with his wife. He reported “wanting to get out of the Army, get custody of his son, and raise him.” He saw a clinical psychologist who reviewed methods to cope with anxiety and stress. The applicant reported experiencing anxiety and depression, but he denied suicidal and homicidal ideation again. He was again diagnosed with an unspecified anxiety disorder, an adjustment disorder, dependent personality disorder, partner relational problem, and erectile disorder. He was recommended to follow-up in week or sooner if necessary. The applicant did not return in a week, and he did not attend his follow-up medication management appointment in April 2006. e. On 30 June 2006, the applicant was seen for a health assessment prior to leaving for NTC and referred for further evaluation by a social worker. The applicant reported sleep problems, nightmares, family (recent birth of his son) concerns, depression, and irritability. He admitted to being seen by a clinical psychologist and prescribed psychiatric medication for his reported symptoms. The social worker reviewed how to get a refill of his medication and ways to address his family and marital concerns. The applicant continued to report frustration with his situation “to the point that he has considered drastic measures such as self-mutilation so he could stay on rear- detachment and leaving for.” The applicant was found to not be cleared for movement to NTC till contact was made with his clinical psychologist. He was denying suicidal and homicidal ideation at the time, and he was diagnosed with adjustment disorder. The applicant went AWOL a few days later. f. A review of the applicant’s court martial trial documents provided evidence the applicant left for before leaving for NTC. He later actively participated in the War Resisters Support Campaign and identified himself as a war resister. He returned to the United States after he was denied refugee status from the Canadian government. g. After returning from, he was returned to Ft. Carson and was seen again by behavioral health on 20 July 2012. He reported stress and increased anxiety related to his legal concerns and family situation. He again denied any suicidal or homicidal ideation plan or attempt. He was diagnosed with Phase of Life Problem and recommended for regular therapy. The applicant attended behavioral health appointments (individual and group therapy) consistently. He primarily reported stress related to his legal problems and marital problems. He did report one incident of suicidal ideation following a verbal disagreement with his wife, but he stated it was short and denied plan or intent. He was regularly diagnosed with an adjustment disorder. h. The applicant was seen for a Mental Status Exam on 16 August 2012. He did report very severe symptoms of PTSD, but this was attributed to his “dislike of the Army culture and American values.” He was cleared for administrative action from a psychiatric perspective. On 23 August 2012, he was escorted to behavioral health after making homicidal threats toward his previous 1SG. The applicant stated it was a misunderstanding, and he denied any current ideation or plan to kill his previous 1SG, and he was released. In October 2012, the applicant stated his family felt he was experiencing PTSD, and he was interested in being evaluated and receiving therapy for PTSD. He also felt this would be beneficial in his court martial trial. However, he strongly declined behavioral health services on post, because of his distrust of the government. He was reported to become hostile and argumentative. The applicant was reported to say he could take “drastic measures” to obtain services off-post or again go AWOL. However, he would not divulge specifically what he was referring to. The applicant continued in individual and group therapy till he was discharged. i. Review of JLV provided evidence the applicant has been found to be 100% service connected for PTSD since 2016. He also provided evidence that he continues in regular behavioral health treatment from a civilian provider for PTSD. j. Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that there is sufficient evidence to support the applicant had condition or experience that partially mitigated his misconduct. Kurta Questions (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes, the applicant was reporting symptoms of PTSD related to his combat experiences and family/marital stress while on active service. He has also been diagnosed with service-connected PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes, the applicant was reporting symptoms of PTSD related to his combat experiences and family/marital stress while on active service. He has also been diagnosed with service- connected PTSD. (3) Does the condition experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial, there is sufficient evidence the applicant was experiencing symptoms of PTSD and significant stress related to his family and marital problem prior to going AWOL. Avoidant behavior such as going AWOL can be a sequalae to PTSD and significant stress. However, the applicant described “impulsively” going AWOL due to his constant suicidal and homicidal ideations. Yet, he repeatedly denied thoughts of suicide or homicide when asked by various behavioral health providers on numerous occasions for months and even a few days prior to going AWOL. Also, he reported a clear plan to leave to go to Canada. He also remained in as an active participate in the War Resisters Support Campaign and identified himself as a war resister for many years. He also participated in news programs and articles clearly outlining his intentions and beliefs about his military service and the US Army and government. This type of presentation is inconsistent with the applicant’s assertion of impulsively going AWOL due to being overwhelmed by his current situation and resultant symptomatology. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that there is sufficient evidence to support the applicant had condition or experience that only partially mitigated his misconduct. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal and clemency determinations requests for upgrade of his characterization of service. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records and medical review, the Board, notwithstanding the medical advisory opinion’s partial mitigation found the applicant’s plan to leave and to go to and remained as an active participate in the War Resisters Support Campaign and identify himself as a war resister for many years. The Board noted the applicant participated in news programs and articles clearly outlining his intentions and beliefs about his military service and the US Army and government. The applicant’s actions and misconduct outweighed the evidence to support the applicant’s condition or experience that would be partially mitigated. 2. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors for the misconduct to weigh a clemency determination. ABCMR is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. Therefore, relief was denied. 3. Prior to closing the case, the Board did note the analyst of record administrative notes below, and recommended the correction is completed to more accurately depict the military service of the applicant. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: Except for the correction addressed in Administrative Note(s) below, the Board found the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S) 1. Army Regulation 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) prescribes policy and procedural guidance relating to transition management. It also explains separation document preparation, distribution, and correction. Paragraph 5-6 provides detailed instructions for data required in each block of the DD Form 214. For block 11 (Primary Specialty) enter the titles of all MOSs or areas of concentration awarded and held for at least 1 year during the current period of service and include for each MOS the number of months held. Primary specialty MOS is awarded by Service school completion or by publication of orders awarding the MOS or AOC. 2. Based on the foregoing, amend block 11 of the applicant's DD Form 214, for the period ending 3 June 2015, by deleting the entry "91E1O ALLIED TRADE SPECIALIST – 9 YRS 5 MOS" and replacing it with the entry "91W1O HEALTH CARE SPECIALIST – 9 YRS 5 MOS." REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, 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, USC, Section 1556, provides the Secretary of the Army shall ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the 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. Title 10, USC, Section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the ABCMR is not empowered to set aside a conviction. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process, it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy or instance of leniency to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. 4. Title 10, USC, Section 1552(b), provides, with respect to courts-martial and related administrative records pertaining to court-martial cases tried or reviewed under the UCMJ, action to correct any military record of the Secretary's Department may extend only to actions taken by reviewing authorities under the UCMJ or action on the sentence of a court-martial for purposes of clemency. The Secretary of the Army shall make such corrections by acting through boards of civilians within the executive part of the Army. 5. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. It is not an investigative body. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 6. 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. Separation authorities could furnish an honorable discharge when subsequent honest and faithful service over a greater period outweighed disqualifying entries in the Soldier's military record. 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, separation authorities could issue a general discharge to Soldiers whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, homosexual conduct, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial in the following circumstances. (1) An under-other-than-honorable-conditions discharge will be directed only by a commander exercising general court-martial authority, a general officer in command who has a judge advocate or legal advisor available to his/her command, higher authority, or the commander exercising special court-martial convening authority over the Soldier who submitted a request for discharge in lieu of court-martial (see chapter 10) when delegated authority to approve such requests. (2) When the reason for separation is based upon one or more acts or omissions that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers of the Army. Examples of factors that may be considered include the following: * Use of force or violence to produce bodily injury or death * Abuse of a position of trust * Disregard by a superior of customary superior-subordinate relationships * Acts or omissions that endanger the security of the United States or the health and welfare of other Soldiers of the Army * Deliberate acts or omissions that seriously endanger the health and safety of other persons d. A BCD will be given to a Soldier pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. The appellate review had to have been completed and the affirmed sentence then ordered duly executed. 7. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the separation codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It states that the separation code "JJD" is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 3, by reason of Court-Martial. Additionally, the SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table established that RE code "4" was the proper reentry code to assign to Soldiers separated under this authority and for this reason. 8. Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard. Table 3-1 provides a list of RE codes. * RE code "1" applies to Soldiers completing their term of active service, who are considered qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met * RE code "2" is no longer in use, but applied to Soldiers separated for the convenience of the government, when reenlistment is not contemplated, who are fully qualified for enlistment/reenlistment * RE code "3" applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, whose disqualification is waivable – they are ineligible unless a waiver is granted * RE code "4" applies to Soldiers separated from last period of service with a non- waivable disqualification 9. The Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRB) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR), on 3 September 2014, 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. 10. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided clarifying guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 August 2017. The memorandum directed them to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD, 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 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. 11. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 July 2018, 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 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, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. 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, Boards 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) AR20220011628 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1