IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 February 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220007258 APPLICANT’S REQUEST: * Upgrade his general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable character of service * Permission to appear personally before the Board, via telephone/video APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * Two DD Forms 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) identification card FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records: Claims Incident Thereto). 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, in effect, he is a 79-year-old Veteran, and, after all these years, he guesses it is never too late to have one's character of service upgraded; the word, "Honor" means a lot to him, and to have that word on his discharge would be very meaningful. He has always considered himself a "Proud Vet," having served on active duty. He retired three years ago, after working at the VA hospital near his home, and from being a painter for 10 years, under the "CLT Program." He provides additional information in a self-authored statement. a. The applicant affirms, the information he now provides the Board he also “disclosed to Captain (CPT) at a meeting I had with him on June 1963. I begin." The applicant states when and where he was born, and, in 1950, his mother left the applicant's birthplace with her boyfriend and moved to. A year later, the boyfriend murdered his mother; at the time the applicant was just 8-years-old, and he found his mother's body lying on the kitchen floor. b. Later that day, a police officer came and took him to an orphanage run by a church, and the applicant remained there from 1951 to 1955. About a year after arriving at the orphanage, the applicant's father came and tried to take the applicant back home, but, because the applicant had been born out of wedlock, the orphanage refused. c. By the time he was 12, he had been in three foster homes; in 1957, they sent to him a teenage boy's home run by a faith-based charity organization. Within a year of being there, one of the counselors approached him, saying the charity organization had offered the counselor a job as a house parent for a house the charity had recently purchased. The counselor asked if the applicant wanted to live there with the counselor, his wife, and their three sons, and the applicant agreed. However, when the applicant turned 17, he had to leave; those were the rules set by the charity. With the counselor's help, the applicant went to an Army recruiting office and enlisted. d. The applicant notes that, when he arrived at the boy's home, the charity told him his father had died, but he later learned this was not true; his father actually remained alive until April 1963, and, had he known, the applicant would have gone to live with his father instead of remaining at the boy's home. e. Everything he has just described to the Board, he told to CPT and the CPT felt sorry for him. For the last three months of his service, the applicant found it very difficult to adjust to military life, and it was hard to talk about all that he had been through between 1950 and 1963, but the most important value he learned while serving in the Army was, "You better keep one foot in front of the other because, if you trip, you better get back up, if you don't you're going to be in big trouble. These are the standards I've always lived bye (sic) today." 3. The applicant's service records show: a. On 7 July 1961, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Army; the applicant was 18 years old when he entered active duty. Upon completion of initial entry training and the award of military occupational specialty 112.0 (Heavy Weapons Infantryman), orders assigned him to Fort Riley, KS, and he arrived at his new unit, on or about 30 September 1961. b. On 1 August 1962, and consistent with the applicant's plea, a special court-martial found the applicant guilty of a Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) violation. (1) The applicant pleaded guilty to missing movement, on 17 July 1962 (Article 87, UCMJ); (the applicant's unit had traveled to Camp Perry, OH). The court sentenced the applicant to 3-months' confinement and a forfeiture of $55 per month for 3 months. (2) On 2 August 1962, the special court-martial convening authority approved the sentence but suspended the applicant's confinement for 3 months. c. On 26 August 1962, the applicant's Fort Riley unit reported him as absent without leave (AWOL); on 2 October 1962, he returned to military control, and, on 20 October 1962, military authority placed the applicant in the Post Stockade at Fort Jay, NY. On 29 October 1962, a Fort Jay special court-martial order announced the applicant's suspended confinement sentence had been vacated. d. On 30 October 1962, a special court-martial convened at Fort Jay to address the applicant's period of AWOL; the applicant pleaded guilty, and a special court-martial subsequently convicted him of AWOL from 26 August until 2 October 1962 (37 days). The court sentenced the applicant to 4-months' confinement and to forfeit $55 per months for 4 months. On 29 November 1962, the special court-martial convening authority approved the sentence and ordered its execution. e. On 20 April 1963, after completing 6 months in confinement, orders reassigned the applicant to an armor regiment on Fort Hood, TX; he arrived at his unit, on or about 13 May 1963. f. On 21 May 1963, an Army psychiatrist conducted a psychiatric evaluation of the applicant and reported the results on an FH Form 195 (Report of Psychiatric Examination). (1) The doctor stated the applicant's unit had referred the applicant prior to initiating separation action, per Army Regulation (AR) 635-209 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unsuitability). (a) The applicant told the psychiatrist that action under AR 635-209 had been recommended while he was still at Fort Jay, but, against his wishes, the Army sent him to Fort Hood for his new unit to discharge him. The doctor noted that, although the applicant had only been in his unit for about a week and a half, it was already evident that rehabilitative measures would not be successful. (b) The applicant explained he had been confined at Fort Jay for about 7 months, and, while still at his previous unit, he accumulated 12 nonjudicial punishments (under Article 15, UCMJ) and two courts-martial. In the first court-martial, he was absent for 11 days and after the leadership suspended his sentence, he broke restriction and went AWOL for another 37 days. (c) The applicant disclosed that his father, a master sergeant, had been killed in Korea in 1952, and, in 1954, his mother died after being shot to death by persons unknown, or perhaps due to suicide. Following his mother's death, he lived in various orphanages and foster homes but he did not get along with the foster parents. The applicant claimed that, during his last period of AWOL, he had met an elderly couple who had agreed to become his unofficial foster parents, and they intended to adopt him once he left the Army. (2) Based on direct examination of the applicant, the psychiatrist stated, "This immature appearing, extremely anxious Soldier feels that he is wholly unable to cope with his many impulses. It appears that since his father was a Master Sergeant who was killed in Korea at a critical period in this boy's life, he is extremely fearful of his relationship with the sergeants in the Army, particularly since his relationship with his father was ambivalent. He is so fearful of his aggressive impulses that unless he is separated from the military service it can be persumed (sic) that this EM (enlisted member) will continue to comit (sic) offenses that will enable him to be locked up in the stockade, where he feels more comfortable. He appears to be completely unable to cope with his fluctuating emotional attitudes because of his strong and poorly controlled guilt, anxiety, and hostility." (3) The psychiatrist indicated the applicant's condition existed prior to service, and he diagnosed the applicant with "(3210) Emotional instability reaction, chronic, severe, in an individual who reacts with exciteability (sic) and ineffectiveness when confronted by minor stress. His judgment tends to be undependable under stress, and his relationship to other people, particularly his superiors, is continuously fraught with fluctuating emotional attitudes because of strong and poorly controlled guilt, anxiety, and hostility." (4) The psychiatrist strongly recommended the applicant's expeditious separation. g. On 27 May 1963, the applicant acknowledged, in writing, that his company commander had notified him he was recommending the applicant's discharge for unsuitability, in accordance with AR 635-209; the applicant affirmed he understood his entitlement to a hearing before a board of officers, and he elected to waive that right. In addition, the applicant indicated that he did not desire counsel and would not be submitting statement in his own behalf. h. On or about 27 May 1963, the applicant's company commander prepared his report recommending the applicant's elimination, under the provisions of AR 635-209. (1) The commander stated, "Elimination is based upon subject EM's Medical Record, FH Form 195 (Report of Psychiatric Examination), EM's negative attitude (in conversation with unit CO (commanding officer), EM has declared he will not return to duty and if he is not eliminated from the service that he intends to go AWOL again) and past record of several AWOLs." (2) The commander further noted the applicant had been counseled by the commander, Mental Hygiene, the battalion chaplain, and the regiment's executive officer. The commander included a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), wherein the supporting medical dispensary's military doctor listed the dates and disposition for 13 of the applicant's visits to sick call, dating from 4 December 1961 until 15 April 1963. i. On 27 May 1963, the separation authority approved the commander's separation recommendation and directed the applicant's general discharge under honorable conditions; on 18 June 1963, orders discharged the applicant accordingly. j. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 4 months, and 1 day of his 3-year enlistment contract, with 223 days of lost time (AWOL and confinement). Item 11c (Reason and Authority) reflects the regulatory separation authority as AR 635-209; the separation program number (SPN) is 264 (Character and Behavior Disorders). Item 26 (Decorations, Medals, Badge, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) listed two marksmanship qualification badges. 4. Army Regulation (AR) 15-185 (ABCMR) states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board; however, the request for a hearing may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of ABCMR. 5. During the applicant's era of service, commanders used AR 635-209 to separate Soldiers for unsuitability when they had been diagnosed with a character or behavior disorder (currently termed personality disorder). The Army's policy with regard to personality disorders has evolved over time: a. In 1966, the Army combined ARs 635-208 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness) and 635-209 into AR 635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability) but did not change the provisions addressing personality disorders. In November 1972, AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) superseded AR 635-212, and this revision moved character/behavior disorder separations to paragraph 13-5b (2) (Unsuitability – Character and Behavior Disorders); again, the policies pertaining to personality disorders remained unchanged. b. In December 1976, based on a civil law suit settlement, the Army revised its personality disorder policies in AR 635-200. The change required Soldiers separated for unsuitability, when based on a personality disorder, to have been evaluated and diagnosed by a physician trained in psychiatry. Later guidance mandated the retroactive application of the foregoing changes and further expanded the policy, such that the presence of a personality disorder diagnosis would warrant an upgrade to fully honorable; the exception involved cases where there were "clear and demonstrable reasons" why a fully honorable discharge should not be given (i.e., conviction by a general court-martial or by more than one special court-martial). 6. Clemency guidance to the Boards for Correction of Military/Navy Records (BCM/NR) does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority to ensure each case will be assessed on its own merits. In determining whether to grant relief 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. This includes consideration of changes in policy, whereby a service member under the same circumstances today would reasonably be expected to receive a more favorable outcome. 7. Published guidance to the BCM/NRs 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. 8. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting an upgrade of his discharge to honorable and a personal 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 makes numerous assertions as outlined in the ROP. These assertions include in 1951, as an 8-year-old, he found his mother’s deceased body after she was murdered by her boyfriend. He was placed in an orphanage and was in multiple orphanages over time. In approximately 1952 his father tried to take the applicant home but because he was born out of wedlock, the orphanage refused. He was told at some point his father had died but he later learned this was not true and his father remained alive until 1963. (2) He found it hard to adjust to military life after his enlistment due to all he had been through between 1950 and 1963. (3) Applicant enlisted into the RA on 7 July 1961. (4) On 1 August 1962 he was found guilty, by a special court martial, of missing movement on 17 July 1962. (5) On 26 August 1962 he was reported AWOL, and on 2 October 1962 returned to military control. He was subsequently found guilty by special court-martial of AWOL from 26 August to 2 October 1962. (6) On 21 May 1963 an Army psychiatrist conducted an evaluation of the applicant. Among the content of the report were (in part) that the applicant had been referred prior to initiating separation action per AR 635-209 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unsuitability); a summary of his UCMJ history; social history indicating his father (a MSG) had been killed in Korea in 1952 and in 1954 his mother died after being shot to death by persons unknown or perhaps due to suicide; following his mother’s death he lived in various orphanages and foster homes; and during his last AWOL he had meet an elderly couple who had agreed to become his unofficial foster parents and intended to adopt him once he left Army. (7) The psychiatrist opined that applicant was extremely anxious and unable to cope with his many impulses; was extremely fearful of his relationships with his sergeants; and will likely continue to commit offenses that will enable him to be locked up in the stockade where he feels more comfortable. Psychiatrist commented on his “strong and poorly controlled guilt, anxiety, and hostility.” Diagnosis was “emotional instability reaction, chronic, severe, in an individual who reacts with excitability and ineffectiveness when confronted by minor stress” (existed prior to service). He was recommended for expeditions separation. (8) Record includes a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form) listing dates and disposition for 13 visits to sick call between 4 December 1961 and 15 April 1963. (9) Applicant was discharged on 18 June 1963; DD214 shows he was separated under AR 635-209 SPN 264 (Character and Behavior Disorders, which under current terminology is generally consistent with a personality disorder), general under honorable conditions. c. Supporting Documents All available supporting documents reviewed. Report of Psychiatric Examination dated 21 May 1963 at Fort Hood, TX was completed by an Army O-3 psychiatrist and appears to be countersigned by an O-5. The overall evaluation was extensively summarized in the Board ROP. Applicant reported at this time his father was killed in Korea in 1952 and his mother was shot to death in 1954 “either by persons unknown or by suicide.” Applicant was described as an “extremely anxious soldier (who) feels that he is wholly unable to cope with his many impulses;” “extremely fearful of his relationships with the sergeants in the Army;” and “so fearful of his aggressive impulses that unless he is separated…it can be presumed that (he) will continue to commit offenses that will enable him to be locked in the stockade, where he feels more comfortable.” He was described as having “fluctuating emotional attitudes because of his strong and poorly controlled guilt, anxiety, and hostility.” As noted in the ROP he was diagnosed with “emotional instability reaction, chronic, severe” with undependable judgment under stress and difficulty maintaining relationships with others, particularly superiors, due to guilt, anxiety, and hostility. Psychiatrist recommended expedition separation from the military. (Advisor’s note – it is unclear what “aggressive impulses” and “hostility” are being referred to as this is not specified in the record). Review of Disposition Form (Abstract of Health Record) dated 27 May 1963 shows 13 dates of sick call between December 1961 and April 1963 but does not include data regarding specifics of presenting concern/treatment/diagnoses. Request for Information dated 19 July 1963 reflects treatment of (or at least request for information associated with possible treatment of) “nervous condition” 11-26-62 at Fort Jay Hospital; treatment of “psychiatric” condition 10-6-62 to 10-8-62 at Fort Hood (?) and additional “eval. and treatment” 6-8-63 (unspecified). In his personal statement, he reports his mother died in 1951, with him finding body after she had been murdered by boyfriend. He also notes that he was led to believe his father had died (per personal statement he was told this in 1957) but he subsequently learned he was alive until 1963. It is not clear when he learned this information. Records (eg, psychiatric evaluation) suggest that while in service he reported his mother’s death was in 1954, when she was killed by unknown persons or perhaps committed suicide, and also indicate his father had been killed in 1952 in Korea The nature of these discrepancies are unclear but is reasonable, under liberal consideration, to presume errors in memory over the approximately 70 years since his mother’s death and that he only learned the truth of his father’s death after his time in service. 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 do not indicate any service- connected conditions. He has electronically-documented VA medical encounters dating back to 2001. His problem list includes Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. In 2010 he was referred for a behavioral health consult evaluation, which was referenced as completed on 28 October 2010 although no full clinical note was located in JLV. He was referred for behavioral health services again 16 July 2013 but declined to schedule, and he was referred in April 2014 but was unable to be contacted for scheduling. He was seen by a social worker for a brief assessment on 26 August 2015 due to family stressors/wife’s illness but noted he was coping well and declined additional services. He was again referred for a behavioral health evaluation in April 2019, which was noted to be completed on 25 April 2019 although there is no note for this date/encounter found in JLV. He completed a telephonic mental health contact on 25 March 2020, which appears primarily associated with family stressors and sleep. He was diagnosed with Other Specified Depressive Disorder and prescribed melatonin for sleep. There is additional reference to a Primary Care Mental Health contact on 6 October 2022 although again there was no clinical note located for such a contact. 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, by implication, mental health condition at the time of, and associated with, the circumstances of his discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes, per the applicant’s assertion and available contemporaneous medical and service records. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The applicant implies mitigation due to mental health factors at the time of his offenses/discharge, and there is compelling evidence of emotional concerns, to include significant anxiety, documented during his active service. Although the diagnosis rendered by the evaluating psychiatrist during his service (emotional instability reaction) is generally devoid of a direct comparison with current psychiatric nomenclature per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5), the narrative suggests overlap with any number of potential diagnoses within the current classification system. Under liberal consideration, it is reasonable to consider applicant’s functioning as consistent with what would currently be classified as an Anxiety Disorder or a Trauma- and Stressor-Related Disorder (a category which includes PTSD). He has a compelling criterion A trauma (in current verbiage) for PTSD given his mother’s violent death, following which he apparently found the body. Specific symptoms documented by psychiatrist, to include guilt, hostility (irritability), anxiety, and difficulty with superiors are often associated with Anxiety Disorders and Trauma- and Stressor-Related Disorders. Avoidance behaviors, such as missing movement, failure to report, and AWOL, are part of the reasonable natural course and sequelae of both Anxiety Disorders and Trauma- and Stressor-Related Disorders. It is the opinion of the BH advisor that there is a nexus between his psychiatric functioning and the circumstances of his discharge, and therefore his psychiatric condition is a mitigating factor. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. 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. 2. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, the applicant's record of service, the frequency and nature of the applicant's misconduct and the reason for separation. The applicant was discharged from active duty due to Unsuitability – Character and Behavior Disorders, after completing 1 year, 4 months, and 1 day of his 3-year enlistment contract. The Board considered the medical records, any VA documents provided by the applicant and the review and conclusions of the advising official. The Board concurred with the medical advisory opinion finding a nexus between his psychiatric functioning and the circumstances of his discharge, and therefore his psychiatric condition is a mitigating factor. Based on published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests, the Board determined an upgrade to his character of service is appropriate. However, a change to the reason for separation and associated codes is not appropriate. ? 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 that the evidence presented was 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 reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 for the period ending 18 June 1963 showing the character of service as Honorable. Additionally: * Separation Authority: No Change * Separation Code: No Change * Reentry Code: No Change * Narrative Reason for Separation: No Change 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 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, United State Code, section 1556 (Ex Parte Communications Prohibited) 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. AR 635-209, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for the separation of Soldiers who were considered unsuitable for continue military service. A Soldier could be separated under this provision when they had been diagnosed with a character or behavior disorder, as listed in AR 40-401 (Medical Service – Armed Forces Medical Diagnosis Nomenclature and Statistical Classification). In 1966, AR 635-212 superseded AR 635-209 but did not change the Army's policy with regard to character and behavior disorders. 4. AR 40-401, in effect at the time, defined character and behavior disorders nomenclatures; the regulation included the following: "Disorders of Character, Behavior, and Intelligence: Immature Personality: Code 3211 – Passive Dependency." 5. AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) superseded AR 635-212 in November 1972 and was revised in December 1976 following settlement of a civil suit. The revision required any separation for unsuitability, based on personality disorder, to include a diagnosis of a personality disorder made by a physician trained in psychiatry. In connection with these changes, a Department of the Army memorandum, dated 14 January 1977, and better known as the "Brotzman Memorandum," was promulgated; this memorandum required retroactive application of the revised policies, attitudes, and changes in reviewing applications for discharge upgrades based on personality disorders. A second memorandum, dated 8 February 1978, and better known as the "Nelson Memorandum," expanded the review policy and specified that the presence of a personality disorder diagnosis would justify an upgrade to fully honorable, except in cases where there were "clear and demonstrable reasons" why a fully honorable discharge should not be given; conviction by a general court-martial or by more than one special court-martial were determined to be "clear and demonstrable reasons" which would justify a less than fully honorable discharge. 6. AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, states, in paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge), 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. 7. 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 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. 8. On 25?July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military DRBs and BCM/NRs regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. a. This guidance does not mandate relief, but 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, 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. 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. 9. Army Regulation (AR) 15-185 (ABCMR) states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board; however, the request for a hearing may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of ABCMR. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220007258 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1