IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 February 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220004995 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, * upgrade of his under honorable condition (general) discharge to honorable * physical disability discharge or retirement * correction of item 5 (Date of Birth) on his DA Form [268] (Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Action, initiated 18 January 1988 * removal of Bar to Reenlistment * personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: ARBA online application in lieu of DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) 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 there are numerous errors in his personnel record starting with inaccurate dates on separation paperwork. A DA Form [268] shows the incorrect date of birth. His DA form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation) is incorrect and incomplete. His chapter 14 was unjust and inappropriate because of a disease he did not know he had (alcohol and drug addiction) which his chain of command knew about from the very beginning. He was unjustly barred from reenlistment. He was unjustly discriminated against by his entire chain of command. They knew from the very beginning he had a drug and alcohol problem and failed to get him the proper help he needed at the time. They kept this from him and conspired among themselves to let him go further down this destructive path knowing full well what the end result would be without proper treatment. They made a conscience decision to deny him the right to proper medical care for his disease. They had more than enough evidence to dishonorably discharge him, but they continued to let his destructive behavior continue until a civilian conviction. He was so far gone he did not know what was happening to him. Why did they give him an honorable discharge with all of these derogatory statements on his character and what kind of Soldier he wasn't when they knew all along he was a drug and alcohol abuser, and they did nothing and refused him proper care under their command. His disease finally caught up with him on 18 January 1996, when he hit a tree doing 110 miles per hour. He was in a coma on life support for 2 months, and experienced extensive injuries; he crushed everything from the waist down, lost a large portion of his large intestine, spleen and gall bladder. During this time, he was constantly locked up. In 2016, when a friend took him to the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), he found out he had benefits. He was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) they also found his motor vehicle accident was caused by his service connected drug and alcohol abuse. He requested his military records and found all the evidence he was discriminated against by his chain of command. They all knew what he was a drug and alcohol abuser, and untreated he was a ticking time bomb they unleashed on the world. Now, because of them he is paralyzed for life with chronic pain and has to be on medication for the rest of his life. 3. The applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve on 30 December 1983 for a period of 6 years in the delayed entry program (DEP). He was discharged from the DEP enlisting in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 2 February 1984. 4. The applicant completed his required training and was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) P91 (medical specialist) and transferred to Germany for permanent duty effective 5 July 1984. 5. The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army on 9 October 1986 for a period of 5 years. He was transferred to Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington on 22 December 1986. 6. A DA Form 4856 (General Counseling Form) shows the applicant was counselled on 2 June 1987 for failure to pay just debts in that he did contract to pay Sergeant B_ $50. His failure to pay just debts reflects badly on him as a person and as a member of the US Army. This action will not be tolerated by his chain of command. This apathy on his part can be punished under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 7. A DA Form 3881 (Rights Warning and Procedure/Waiver Certificate), dated 9 July 1987, shows the applicant was investigated for abusive language and abusive gestures. A DA Form 4856 shows on 9 July 1987, he was counseled to advise him he was under investigation for abusive language and abusive gestures. An attached statement provided details given to Command Sergeant Major (CSM) on 7 July 1987, at approximately 1315 hours. It states in pertinent part: On 6 July 1987 at approximately 2215 hours, drover her daughter and her friend, ages 11, to. As she drove into two individuals in a silver gray sports car with a military sticker, hollered out at her “Get your white [explicit] out of my way”. She did not respond and continued into the parking lot and parked to let the girls out of the car to go into. As the girls passed the car, the men continued to holler abusive language, calling the girls [explicit]. The girls did not respond. When they returned to the car, they were insulted with obscenities and abusive language. drove the girls to home (the friend’s home). reported the incident to the Sheriff’s department and a response was within 10 minutes. The car and the individuals were identified as active duty soldiers assigned to Madigan Army Medical Center. The [S]oldiers were issued a verbal waring from the police. reported the incident to Staff Duty NCO I Corps, and informed her husband and he told his XO and First Sergeant. 8. A DA Form 4856, dated 3 August 1987 shows the applicant was counseled for failure to report for scheduled duty on Ward 20 his official place of duty on 2 August 1987 at 0700 hours. He did not have a valid reason for his absence from his place of duty, this is the second such incident of this nature. He received a counseling for the first absence from duty. He should receive stronger disciplinary measures. He was advised a request for further disciplinary action be taken by the unit First Sergeant. 9. A DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ) shows the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment on 21 December 1987 for stealing $100.00, the property of Private on 20 November 1987. He was reduced in grade to E-2 with one (1) grade reduction suspended until 1 June 1988, forfeiture of $300.00 per month for two (2) months, and 45 days extra duty. 10. A DA Form 2627-2 (Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 22 January 1988, shows a vacation of suspension of the punishment of reduction to the grade of E-2, on grade suspended until 1 June 1988 imposed on 21 December 1987 based on the offense of resisting arrest on or about 17 January 1988. 11. A Fort Lewis Military Police Blotter Extract, dated 20 November 1987, shows the applicant was changed with larceny. 12. A Disposition Form subjected: failure to respond to a civilian citation, dated 4 January 1988, shows the applicant failed to respond to a civilian citation and had an outstanding fine. The attached Washington Uniform Court Docket shows the applicant was cited for speeding (50 mph in 35 mph zone) on 26 November 1987 and owed an outstanding penalty of $76.00. 13. A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) shows the applicant’s duty status changed from present for duty to confined by civilian authorities effective 1500 hours on 17 January 1988. 14. A DA Form 268 (Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions), dated 18 January 1988, shows the applicant under restraint by civil authorities. The form shows the applicant’s date of birth as 7 October 1964 vice 10 July 1964. 15. The Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) initiated a report of investigation on 25 January 1988 for larceny of U.S. mail and forgery. The preliminary investigation revealed that the applicant stole Specialist U.S. Government Treasury check from the unit mail room and attempted to cash the check. The teller observed him sign the check and noticed a discrepancy in the signature and identification card and notified the Sheriff’s office where he was apprehended. 16. Superior Court of the State of Washington Docket Number 88-1-00138-5, shows the applicant was found guilty of attempted forgery. He was ordered one (1) year of bench probation, to pay a totally of $420.00, and to serve 31 days in jail. 17. A DA Form 4187, shows he applicant’s duty status changed from confined by civilian authorities to present for duty effective 0730 hours on 18 February 1988. 18. On 8 March 1988, a Bar to Reenlistment Certificate was issued citing the following violations: * 24 August 1987 - company grade Article 15 for failure to repair * 21 December 1987 - field grade Article 15 for larceny * 2 June 1987 - counseling for failure to pay just debts * 9 July 1987 - counseling for abusive languages and gestures * 11 January 1988 - civilian confinement pending court date, resisting arrest, forgery, and possession of stolen property 19. On 4 April 1988, the applicant was counseled concerning his bar to reenlistment. He was advised he may appeal the bar within 15 days of the counseling. 20. The applicant was counseled on 11 April 1988 for his conviction of attempted forgery. He was advised by his commander he was initiating administrative separation actions under the provisions of AR 635-200 Chapter 14. He was required to undergo a mental status evaluation as a part of this process. He was advised this action can include a less than honorable discharge, with negative effects resulting to any future attempts to return to return to military service, veteran benefits, security clearance eligibility, and civilian employment opportunities. 21. A DA Form 268 was initiated on 11 April 1988 in response to the applicant’s pending administrative separation. 22. A DA Form 3822-R shows a mental status evaluation was conducted on 22 April 1988. It shows his behavior was normal. He was fully alert and oriented. His mood was unremarkable. His thinking process was clear with normal thought content and good memory. He was found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings, meets the retention requirements of chapter 3 AR 40-501. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. 23. The applicant was notified on 9 May 1988 action had been initiated to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-5 for his conviction of attempted forgery by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington. He was recommended to receive a general discharge under honorable conditions. He was advised: * he has the right to consult with consulting counsel and/or civilian counsel at no expense to the government within a reasonable time (not less than 3 duty days) * he may submit written statements on his behalf * he may obtain copies of documents that will be submitted to the separation authority supporting the proposed separation * he may waive his rights in writing and may withdraw any such waiver at any time prior to the date the separation authority directs, orders, or approves separation * he is required to undergo a mental status evaluation (which was already completed) 24. On 11 May 1988, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged he understood the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for commission of a serious offense, under AR 635-200, Chapter 14, and its effects; of the rights available to him; and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights. He elected not to submit statements on his own behalf. He understood he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he does not receive an honorable discharge. He understood that if he receives a discharge certificate/character of service which is less than honorable, he may make application to the Army Discharge Review Board or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records for upgrading; however, he realizes that consideration of his case by either board does not imply that his discharge will be upgraded. He understood that he will be ineligible to apply for enlistment in the United States Army for a period of 2 years after his discharge. 25. The applicant’s separation was approved with a waiver of rehabilitative requirement set forth in AR 635-200, paragraph 1-18 on 31 May 1988. 26. On 6 June 1988, the applicant waived his right to appeal his civil conviction. 27. The applicant was discharged on 13 June 1988 under the provisions of AR 365-200, chapter 14 for civilian conviction. He was credited 4 years 3 months 9 days net active service this period. His character of service is general, under honorable conditions. 28. Based on the applicant's contention the Army Review Boards Agency medical staff provided a medical review for the Board members. See "MEDICAL REVIEW" section. 29. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The Army disability rating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career. The VA does not have authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service. The VA may compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. 30. Title 38, U.S. Code, Sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a VA rating does not establish an error or injustice on the part of the Army. 31. Title 38, CFR, Part IV is the VA’s schedule for rating disabilities. The VA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge. As a result, the VA, operating under different policies, may award a disability rating where the Army did not find the member to be unfit to perform his duties. Unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. 32. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. Paragraph 2-11 states applicants do not have a right to a formal hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 33. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR in effect for an upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge to honorable and a physical disability discharge or retirement. He contends he had a mental disorder that mitigated his misconduct. b. Pertinent to this advisory are the following: 1) The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 February 1984; 2) On 08 March, a Bar to Reenlistment Certificate was issued to the applicant citing the following violations, which occurred between August 1987-January 1988: failure to repair, larceny, failure to pay debts, abusive language and gestures, and civilian confinement pending court date, resisting arrest, forgery, and possession of stolen property; 3) The applicant was discharged on 13 June 1988, chapter 14 for civilian conviction (attempted forgery). His character of service is general, under honorable conditions. c. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s military service and medical records. The VA’s Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) was also examined. d. The applicant asserts he was wrongly discharged from military service, because his chain of command “knew from the very beginning I (he) had a drug and alcohol (problem) and failed to get me (him) the proper help I (he) needed at the time.” The applicant also reported his Mental Status Exam (MSE) (DA Form 3822-R) completed on 22 April 1988 was “incorrect and incomplete.” There was insufficient evidence the applicant was treated for a mental health condition while on active service. The applicant was seen for an MSE as part of his separation proceedings. The MSE was completed by a military psychiatrist, and the applicant was cleared for administrative proceedings. The MSE appears to be appropriately completed, except for the Reason for Evaluation (Box 1.). This section was not completed. However, on 11 April 1988, the applicant was counseled by his commander that an MSE would be completed as part of his separation proceedings. It is likely the applicant was aware of the nature and purpose of the evaluation. There is insufficient evidence at this time to challenge the results of the MSE completed for the applicant on 22 April 1988. e. The applicant has been actively engaged in behavioral health treatment at the VA since 2015. The applicant has been diagnosed and treated by the VA for alcohol dependence, cocaine use, opioid dependence, depression, anxiety disorder, adjustment disorder, and PTSD. The applicant receives 50% service connect disability for PTSD. The applicant was a trained medic, and he reported experiencing PTSD symptoms as a result of to providing aid to an individual involved in a motor vehicle accident. f. Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant had condition or experience that mitigated his misconduct. ? Kurta Questions A. Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes, the applicant contends he was experiencing alcohol and substance abuse. In addition, the applicant receives service-connected disability for PTSD. B. Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes, the applicant’s reported experiencing alcohol and substance abuse while on active service, and he receives service-connected disability for PTSD. C. Does the condition experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. There is evidence the applicant experienced alcohol and substance abuse while on active service. The applicant denies being aware he was experiencing these difficulties despite his medic training. The applicant’s alcohol and drug use could be an attempt to self-medicate or to avoid a negative emotional state. Avoidant behaviors are often a natural sequalae to PTSD. There could be a nexus between some of the applicant’s behavior which resulted in his bar to reenlistment, specifically the failure to repair and abusive language and gestures. However, there is no nexus between the applicant’s reported mental health conditions and the remainder of his misconduct (i.e. larceny, failure to pay debts, resisting arrest, forgery, and possession of stolen property). There is no nexus between his reported mental health conditions and this type of misconduct given that: 1) this type of misconduct is not part of the natural history or sequelae of his reported mental health conditions; 2) These mental health conditions do not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. Lastly, there is insufficient evidence at this time to support a referral to IDES. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board found the available evidence sufficient to consider this case fully and fairly without a personal appearance by the applicant. 2. The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, 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, his bar to reenlistment, the frequency and nature of his misconduct and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the applicant's PTSD diagnosis and the review and conclusions of the ARBA Medical Advisor. The applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference in support of a clemency determination. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official regarding his misconduct not being mitigated by PTSD. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined the applicant’s bar to reenlistment due to misconduct, the character of service the applicant received upon separation, and the reason for his separation were not in error or unjust 3. The Board further found that the error in his date of birth on his DA Form 268 was a harmless error that had no discernible effect on the propriety of proceedings against him or the outcome of those proceedings. The Board determined the document should not be amended. 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: 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, 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 (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Separations) in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 1-18 (Counseling and rehabilitative requirements), subparagraph d (Waivers) states the requirement for a rehabilitative transfer may be waived by the separation authority. Waiver authority may be withheld by a higher separation authority in a particular case; class of cases, or all cases. Action to withhold waiver authority will be in writing and will be valid until revoked in writing. Waiver must be based upon the determination of the separation authority that further duty of the member would- * create serious disciplinary problems or a hazard to the military mission or to the member, or * be inappropriate because the member is resisting rehabilitation attempts, or * rehabilitation would not be in the best interests of the Army as it would not produce a quality Soldier b. Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge) states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. 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. c. Paragraph 3-7b (General Discharge) states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a member whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. d. Paragraph 14-5 (Conditions which subject member to discharge) states a member may. be considered for discharge when initially convicted by civil authorities, or when action is taken that is tantamount to a finding of guilty if one of the following conditions is present. * a punitive discharge would be authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the MCM, 1969 (Rev), as amended; or * the sentence by civil authorities includes confinement for 6 months or more, without regard to suspension or probation 3. Title 10, U.S. Code, Chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency is responsible for administering the Army physical disability evaluation system and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in chapter 61 and in accordance with DOD Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). a. Soldiers are referred to the disability system when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, as evidenced in an MEB; when they receive a permanent medical profile rating of 3 or 4 in any factor and are referred by an MOS Medical Retention Board; and/or they are command-referred for a fitness-for-duty medical examination. b. The disability evaluation assessment process involves two distinct stages: the MEB and PEB. The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member's injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his/her ability to return to full duty based on the job specialty designation of the branch of service. A PEB is an administrative body possessing the authority to determine whether or not a service member is fit for duty. A designation of "unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. Service members who are determined to be unfit for duty due to disability either are separated from the military or are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service. Individuals who are "separated" receive a one-time severance payment, while veterans who retire based upon disability receive monthly military retired pay and have access to all other benefits afforded to military retirees. c. The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. 4. Title 38 U.S. Code, Section 1110 (General - Basic Entitlement) states for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service, during a period of war, the United States will pay to any veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 5. Title 38 U.S. Code, Section 1131 (Peacetime Disability Compensation - Basic Entitlement) states for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service, during other than a period of war, the United States will pay to any veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 6. AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability. Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, all disabilities are rated using the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). a. Disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service- incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and who can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in military service. b. Soldiers who sustain or aggravate physically-unfitting disabilities must meet the following line-of-duty criteria to be eligible to receive retirement and severance pay benefits: (1) The disability must have been incurred or aggravated while the Soldier was entitled to basic pay or as the proximate cause of performing active duty or inactive duty training. (2) The disability must not have resulted from the Soldier's intentional misconduct or willful neglect and must not have been incurred during a period of unauthorized absence. 7. AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment (including officer procurement programs), retention, and separation (including retirement). The Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). VASRD is used by the Army and the VA as part of the process of adjudicating disability claims. It is a guide for evaluating the severity of disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. This degree of severity is expressed as a percentage rating which determines the amount of monthly compensation. 8. Section 1556 of Title 10, U.S. 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. 9. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD, traumatic brain injury, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based, in whole or in part, on those conditions or experiences. 10. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 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 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. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs in 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, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220004995 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1