IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 22 February 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220006771


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be 
upgraded, and a personal appearance before the Board via video/telephone.

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

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) (photocopy)

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the three-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.  The applicant states he has made a change in his life to get back on the right track. 
He is currently attending a twelve-step program at the Veterans Administration (VA). He 
plans on becoming a VA employee. He served honorably before, please consider his 
appeal.

3.  On his DD Form 149, the applicant notes post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and 
other mental health issues are related to his request, as contributing and mitigating 
factors in the circumstances that resulted in his separation.

4.  The applicant's record contains a DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record), 
which shows he enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 18 August 1983. He 
entered initial active duty for training (IADT) on 4 September 1984, completed his period 
of IADT, and was awarded military occupational specialty 31K (Combat Signaler).

5.  The applicant was released from IADT on 24 November 1984 and returned to the 
control of the ARNG. His DD Form 214 shows he was honorably discharged completed 
2 months and 21 days of net active service this period.

6.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 October 1986, for a 4-year term of 
service. 

7.  The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of 
Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 3 January 1987, for willfully 
disobeying a 10-day medical restriction imposed by a noncommissioned officer on 
19 December 1986, by leaving the confines of the area, on or about 26 December 1986.

8.  The applicant was command referred to under-go a mental evaluation due to being 
involved in an incident that could have resulted in an Article 15. He underwent an 
evaluation on 13 April 1987. The DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation) 
shows he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings, 
however he showed indication of a possible alcohol problem and was recommended for 
further examination. 

9.  The applicant accepted NJP, under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ on 
16 April 1987, for being drunk and disorderly, resisting apprehension by military police, 
and willfully and wrongfully stomping the hood of a car of a value of more than $100, the 
property of a Korean civilian, on or about 4 April 1987. His punishment included 
reduction to E-1, 14 -days of restriction, and 14-days of extra duty.

10.  The applicant was enrolled in the Track II Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and 
Control Program (ADAPCP) on 28 April 1987, following a referral for alcohol abuse. 

11.  The applicant underwent another mental status examination on 17 June 1987. The 
DA?Form 3822-R shows he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in 
proceedings. 

12.  The applicant underwent a medical examination on 22 June 1987 and noted that he 
was experiencing depression and excessive worrying. The physician noted his 
depression started four to five weeks ago and that behavior therapy was instituted.

13.  A DA Form 4126-R (Bar to Enlistment/Reenlistment Certificate), dated 
24 June 1987 shows the applicant’s commander recommended a bar to reenlistment for 
the NJPs and dishonored checks ($50.00 and $65.00). The bar to reenlistment was 
approved on 6 July 1987.

14.  Before a summary court-martial on 23 July 1987, at the Republic of Korea, the 
applicant was found guilty of one specification of breaking restriction, disobeying a 
commissioned officer, wrongful appropriation of government property, and being drunk 
and disorderly. The court sentenced him to 30 days of confinement and forfeiture of 
$438.00 pay for one month.

15.  The applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant on 20 July 1987 of his 
intent to initiate separation actions against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, for 
misconduct – patterns of misconduct. As the specific reasons, his commander noted the 
applicant's damage to private property, breaking medical quarantine, drunk and 
disorderly, resisting apprehension. 

16.  The applicant consulted with counsel on 20 July 1987 and was advised of the basis 
for the contemplated action to separate him and of the rights available to him. He 
acknowledged receipt and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

17.  The applicant's immediate commander formally recommended his discharge on 
23 July 1987, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by 
reason of a pattern of misconduct. The separation authority approved the recommended 
action on 5 August 1987 and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

18.  The applicant was discharged on 19 August 1987. His DD Form 214 confirms he 
was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, 
by reason of misconduct-patterns of misconduct. His service was characterized as 
under honorable conditions. He was credited with 10 months and 19 days of net active 
service this period.

19.  Published guidance to the Boards for Correction of Military/Navy Records 
(BCM/NR) clearly indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on 
the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the 
action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its 
determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, available records and/or 
submitted documents in support of the petition

20.  MEDICAL REVIEW: 

    a.  The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting an upgrade of his under 
honorable conditions (general) discharge and an appearance before the Board.

    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 asserts PTSD and other mental health conditions associated with 
this application.
(2)	He enlisted in the ARNG on 18 August 1983 and entered IADT on 4 September 
1984.  He was released from IADT on 24 November 1984. 
(3)	Applicant enlisted in the RA on 1 October 1986.
(4)	He accepted NJP on 3 January 1987 for willfully disobeying a 10-day medical 
restriction on/about 26 December 1986.
(5)	He was command-referred for a mental health evaluation, which occurred 13 
April 1987.  DA3822-R indicated possible alcohol problem but otherwise had 
mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings.
(6)	He accepted NJP on 16 April 1987 for drunk and disorderly, resisting 
apprehension by MP and damaging a vehicle of a Korean civilian on about 4 
April 1987.
(7)	He was enrolled in ADAPCP on 28 April 1987.  Subsequent mental status 
evaluation on 17 June 1987 again was unremarkable and he was cleared for 
administrative action.
(8)	Medical examination of 22 June 1987 noted depression and worry with 
depression starting 4-5 weeks prior and therapy was started.
(9)	On 24 June 1987 a bar to re-enlistment was recommended due to NJPs and 
dishonored checks.
(10)	Before a summary court-martial on 23 July 1987, he was found guilty of 
breaking restriction, disobeying a commissioned officer, wrongful appropriation of 
government property, and being drunk and disorderly.
(11)	He was ultimately discharged 19 August 1987.  DD214 shows discharge 
under AR 635-200 paragraph 14-12b for patterns of misconduct, under 
honorable conditions.
    c.  Supporting Documents

All supporting documents reviewed.  Lack of citation or discussion in this section should 
not be interpreted as lack of consideration.  DD Form 149 references PTSD and other 
mental health conditions associated with application.  Mental Status Evaluation dated 
13 April 1987 reports “possible alcohol problem” but was otherwise unremarkable and 
he was cleared for administrative action. Available ADAPCP records reviewed.  
Subsequent Mental Status Evaluation dated 17 June 1987 (which was conducted by a 
different provider than the initial MSE) indicated no diagnosis, mentally responsible, met 
retention standards of AR 40-501, and applicant was again cleared for administrative 
action.

Report of medical history dated 22 June 1987 indicates depression or excessive worry 
and treatment in 1987 for depression and worry.  Narrative comments regarding 
depression/worry indicate “about 4-5 weeks ago,” and behavior therapy was instituted 
(no such records were available for review, and time frame of onset would be in the 
mid-late May range based on this report). Of interest, although unrelated to 
circumstances of discharge, is his bar to re-enlistment certificate dated 25 June 1987, 
which references that he has “contracted sexually transmitted disease on 5 separate 
occasions.”

    d.  AHLTA

The Army electronic medical record, AHLTA, was not reviewed; it was not an existing 
EMR at the applicant’s time of service.

    e.  JLV

Available VA records were reviewed via JLV.  Records indicate applicant has no 
service-connected mental health conditions.  He does have extensive VA involvement 
for mental health issues and insufficient housing dating back to 2021, as well as a long 
history of substance use programs and use of transitional and substance-program 
related housing. A 12 August 2021 note references a history of diagnoses over time to 
include Bipolar Disorder and PTSD with mental health concerns dating back to age 13 
when he was hospitalized as a child for trauma after “a man mom was living with tried to 
kill (applicant) and his mom.” In the early 1980s he reportedly tried to hang himself with 
a belt, per this encounter note.  Mental Health Intake dated 25 August 2021 describes a 
history of Bipolar I disorder and a long history of substance use including alcohol, 
cocaine, and marijuana, and use of antipsychotic medication; evaluation reiterated 
history of childhood verbal and emotional abuse, exposure to trauma at age 13, and 
past suicide attempt by belt. He was admitted for psychiatric inpatient care on 30 March 
2022 on an involuntary basis due to acute suicidality.  He was noted to be homeless, 
misusing alcohol, and off his antipsychotic medication. He was diagnosed upon 
admission with Bipolar Disorder (Most Recent Episode Depressed, Severe) and Alcohol 
Use Disorder. Inpatient records reference suicide attempt by hanging with belt 
approximately age 14-15. His discharge diagnoses (5 April 2022) included Bipolar I 
Disorder (current episode depressed); alcohol dependence, severe; and unspecified 
trauma- and stressor related disorder. He was discharged into a domiciliary substance 
use program.  He was discharged from the domiciliary on 16 May 2022 as a planned 
discharge after completion with marked improvement. He appears to receive routine 
naltrexone injections to assist with sobriety from alcohol and is prescribed psychotropic 
medications to include antipsychotic medication.

    f.  Other

Query of HAIMS did not return any documents for this applicant.


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 mental health 
conditions associated with the circumstances of his discharge.

2.	Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes, his record 
contains compelling evidence of a pre-enlistment trauma and mood dysregulation 
prior to enlistment in the military, the latter evidenced by an attempted suicide in his 
teens.

3.	Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes.  
The applicant asserts mitigation due to PTSD and mental health factors at the time 
of his offense/discharge. His record is consistent with bipolar disorder being his 
primary psychiatric diagnosis in the context of an apparent early history of trauma.  
His behaviors ultimately leading to discharge are suggestive of bipolar spectrum 
symptoms, which can often go undiagnosed or unrecognized for years prior to 
appropriate diagnosis.  The diagnosis often requires a reliable and thorough 
developmental and social history, which soldiers are often reticent to describe at 
enlistment or with military providers; if they deny such a history and are not in a 
severe depressive or manic episode at the time of evaluation and minimize 
concerns, they can present as psychologically healthy.  Age of full onset is typically 
around age 25, but symptoms can certainly manifest earlier. The advisor appreciates 
the problematic nature of his various offenses; however, when taken as a whole and 
under liberal consideration guidelines, they can be accounted for by bipolar illness.  
Alcohol use is often a means of self-medicating, and there is a high co-morbidity 
between alcohol (and other substance) use and bipolar disorder. Substance 
concerns appear to have continued to be problematic for this applicant over time. 
Bipolar disorder, especially during manic episodes, can result aggressive and 
reckless behavior; impulsivity with poor (or at times even absent) behavioral control; 
and engagement in high-risk activities with indifference to consequences. Incidental 
to the circumstances of separation is reference to hypersexuality and unsafe sex 
practices, which are fully consistent with bipolar disorder and further supports an 
overall pattern consistent with the diagnosis.


?
BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found 
within the military record, the Board found that relief was 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 the medical advisory the Board 
concurred with the advising official finding evidence of a pre-enlistment trauma and 
mood dysregulation prior to enlistment in the military. Bipolar disorder, especially during 
manic episodes, can result aggressive and reckless behavior; impulsivity with poor (or 
at times even absent) behavioral control; and engagement in high-risk activities with 
indifference to consequences. The Board determined there was sufficient evidence to 
warrant relief.  In addition, the Board determined the applicant met the criteria for award 
of the Korea Defense Service Medal based on his assigned to Korea from October 1986 
to October 1987.  Based on this, the Board granted relief to upgrade the applicant’s 
character of service to honorable and award him the Korea Defense Service Medal.

2.  The applicant’s request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered.  
In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable 
decision.  As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the 
interest of equity and justice in this case.


BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

X	X	X	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	:	:	DENY APPLICATION


?
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a 
recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of 
the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by awarding him the Korea 
Defense Service Medal and amending the applicant’s a DD Form 214 showing his 
characterization of service as honorable. 


	 
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, USC, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military 
records must be filed within three 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 three-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 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 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for 
correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  
The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered.  
However, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board.  
Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of the ABCMR.  
In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant 
and his counsel is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time.  As a 
result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity 
and justice in this case

4.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel. 

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor 
and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is 
appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards 
of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so 
meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b states 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.

	c.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members 
for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions (a pattern of 
misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions), a pattern of 
misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or 
conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline). Action will be taken to separate a 
member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable 
or is unlikely to succeed. A 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 merited by the Soldier’s overall record. 

5.  The Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) 
and BCM/NRs, 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 UOTHC 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. 

6.  The Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) 
and BCM/NRs, 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 UOTHC 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. 

7.  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, traumatic brain injury (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 sexual assault or sexual harassment was unreported, or 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. 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. 

	a.  Guidance documents are not limited to UOTHC discharge characterizations but 
rather apply to any petition seeking discharge relief including requests to change the 
narrative reason, re-enlistment codes, and upgrades from general to honorable 
characterizations. 

	b.  An honorable discharge characterization does not require flawless military 
service. Many veterans are separated with an honorable characterization despite some 
relatively minor or infrequent misconduct.
	c.  Liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade. Relief may be appropriate, 
however, for minor misconduct commonly associated with mental health conditions, 
including PTSD; TBI; or behaviors commonly associated with sexual assault or sexual 
harassment; and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the 
facts and circumstances.

8.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to 
Service Discharge Review Boards 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)	AR20220006771


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1