IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 30 June 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220011737


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) 
discharge be upgraded.

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

*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge) in lieu of DD Form 149 
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)

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 his court martial was for drug abuse/alcoholism that he believes 
was caused by mental issues he was suffering from due to his military service.

3.  On the applicant's DD Form 293, he indicates post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 
and other mental health issues as contributing and mitigating factors in the 
circumstances that resulted in his separation. However, he did not provide any evidence 
to support these diagnoses.

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 16 July 1997, he 
served on initial active duty for training (IADT) from 19 May 1998 to 24 September 1998 
with award of military occupational specialty (MOS) 51B (Carpentry and Masonry 
Specialist). He was released from active duty and returned to his ARNG unit. He was 
issued of a DD Form 214 showing an uncharacterized separation [see Administrative 
Note].

5.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 January 1999 for 3 years in the 
grade of E-2, the highest grade he held.

6.  Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 2 June 2000 for 
violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). His DD Form 458 (Charge 
Sheet) shows he was charged with: 

*	being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 1 May 2000 until on or 
about 4 May 2000
*	between on or about 19 February 1999 and on or about 1 May 2000, multiple 
occasions of wrongful use of marijuana

7.  The record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and 
circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing.

8.  The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge on 5 July 
2000, in lieu of trial by court-martial, and directed the applicant be reduced to E-1, with 
the issuance of an UOTHC Discharge Certificate.

9.  The applicant was discharged on 14 July 2000 in the grade of E-1. His DD Form 214 
shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel 
Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court martial and his 
service was characterized as UOTHC. He was credited with 1 year, 6 months, and 
9 days of net active service; he had 4 months and 6 days of prior active service. He is 
shown to have served in Kosovo from 15 May 1999 to 7 November 1999. His awards 
are listed as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Medal, Kosovo Service Medal with 
one bronze service star, and the Army Service Ribbon. 

10.  The applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the 
UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Subsequent to being charged, he would have 
consulted with counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10. Such discharges are voluntary requests for discharge 
in lieu of trial by court-martial.

11.  The applicant did not respond to a request for medical documents to support his 
issue of PTSD or other mental health issues.

12.  In determining whether to grant relief the Boards for Correction of Military/Navy 
Records (BCM/NR) can consider the applicant’s petition, arguments and assertions, 
and service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency 
guidance.





13.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

    a.  Background: The applicant is requesting his under other than honorable 
conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. He contends PTSD and other mental 
health are mitigating factors. 
    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: 
*	The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 16 July 1997. The 
applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 January 1999. 
*	Applicant deployed to Kosovo from 15 May 1999 to 7 November 1999. 
*	Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 2 June 2000 for being 
absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 1 May 2000 until on or about 4 May 
2000, and for multiple occasions of wrongful use of marijuana between 
approximately 19 February 1999 and 1 May 2000. 
*	His full separation packet is not available. However, based on the DD 214 and 
memos approving his discharge, it appears the applicant requested separation per 
AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court martial and it was granted. 
*	Applicant was discharged on 14 July 2000, under the provisions of AR 635-200, 
Chapter 10, with his characterization of service as UOTHC.

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, his 
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), his DD 214, as well as documents from his 
service record and separation. The VA electronic medical record and DoD health record 
were reviewed through Joint Longitudinal View (JLV) and AHLTA, though minimal data 
was available. Lack of citation or discussion in this section should not be interpreted as 
lack of consideration. 

    d.  This applicant stated he was court martialed for conduct related to drug use and 
alcoholism (file notes AWOL and marijuana use), which he believes were caused by 
mental health issues due to his military service. He asserted that PTSD and other 
mental health mitigate his discharge. There are no medical nor mental health records 
available from his time in service. Outside of self-report, there is no evidence that the 
applicant was ever diagnosed with PTSD. There is currently no indication that he held 
any other mental health diagnoses during his time in service, though his charges would 
suggest at minimum struggling with substance use. 
    e.  The applicant has one encounter with the VA from May 2023, where he was seen 
for an intake with the homeless team. He was described as being “unsheltered 
homeless.” Outside of this one interaction, the applicant does not have any other 
electronic health records available, and he did not supply any medical or mental health 
records to substantiate his assertion. 
    f.  Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral 
Health Advisor that there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant had a 
condition or experience at the time of service that mitigated his discharge. However, he 
contends his misconduct was related to PTSD and other mental health concerns, and 
per Liberal Consideration guidance, his contention is sufficient to warrant the Board’s 
consideration.
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 PTSD and other 
mental health as a mitigating factor. 

2.	Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes, the 
applicant contends a mitigating condition was present during his time in service. 

3.	Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. 
There is insufficient evidence at this time to support that the applicant was 
experiencing a mitigating condition during his time in service. There is no medical 
documentation to support a diagnosis of PTSD or any other mental health 
conditions, however this is not uncommon given the lack of electronic health 
records at the time of his service. His VA electronic health records (EHR) also do 
not list any mental health condition. However, the applicant’s service record does 
indicate repeated concerns with his use of marijuana (hashish). Of note, 
substance use is often a self-medicating behavior, used to avoid and mask 
symptoms, and this can be associated with the natural history and sequelae of 
numerous conditions, to include PTSD. But his substance use alone is not 
sufficient to establish history of a condition during active service. And substance 
use disorders are not typically a mitigating condition as a stand-alone diagnosis. 
In addition, going AWOL is an avoidant behavior consistent with the natural 
history and sequalae of certain mental health conditions, to include PTSD. Like 
substance use, going AWOL is also not sufficient to establish history of a 
condition during active service. That said, the applicant contends he was 
experiencing a mental health condition that mitigated his discharge, and per 
Liberal Consideration, his contention is sufficient to warrant the board’s 
consideration.  

    g.  An extra note, there is no indication that the applicant was sent for a substance 
use evaluation or treatment. This is rather surprising. Even one incident of use would 
typically lead to a referral to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP). Again, there 
may be no evidence due to lack of electronic health records at that time. 


BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that 
relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, 
supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical advisory opinion, and 
published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The 
Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service, the frequency and 
nature of his misconduct, and the reason for his separation.  The Board found 
insufficient evidence to support the applicant had a condition or experience at the time 
of service that mitigated his discharge. The applicant provided no evidence of PTSD 
diagnosis, post-service achievements, or letters of reference in support of a clemency 
determination. Based upon a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the 
character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust.

2.  Prior to closing the case, the Board did note the analyst of record administrative 
notes below, and recommended the correction be 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):

The applicant completed a period of IADT. He was awarded a MOS at the completion of 
training and was transferred back to an ARNG unit. Army Regulation 635-200 provides 
that when a Reserve Component or ARNG Soldier successfully completes IADT, the 
characterization of service is Honorable unless directed otherwise by the separation 
authority. A reissue of his DD Form 214, for the period ending 24 September 1998, 
showing his character of service as Honorable is warranted.


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.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1556, provides the Secretary of the Army shall ensure 
that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) 
is provided a copy of all correspondence and communications, including summaries of 
verbal communications, with any agencies or persons external to agency or board, or a 
member of the staff of the agency or Board, that directly pertains to or has material 
effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute.

3.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel. The version in effect at that time provided that:

	a.  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.  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. A characterization of under 
honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation 
specifically allows such characterization.

	c.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had 
committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a 
punitive discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in 
lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges 
had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt. Although 
an honorable or general discharge was authorized, an under other than honorable 
conditions discharge was normally considered appropriate. 

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 
Discharge Review Boards 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 a liberal consideration to 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 
misconduct that led to the discharge.

5.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to 
Military Discharge Review Boards and 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.)	AR20220011737


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1