IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 14 March 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220008116


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his previous request for upgrade of his 
under honorable conditions (general) discharge. Additionally, he desires to appear 
before the Board via video/telephone.

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

DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)

FACTS:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the 
previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of 
Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket AR20120022367 on 14 April 1999, which shows 
the Board denied his petition indicating the applicant had not presented and the records 
do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice 
to grant the relief requested.

2.  As a new argument, the applicant states he was railroaded when he was working for 
the criminal investigation department. They got him confused with his wife. He never 
failed a drug test. He was told by the doctors in Germany that he had Post Traumatic 
Stress Disorder (PTSD) and he still does. He really does not remember too much.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 November 1986, for a 3-year 
service obligation. He was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman). 
He had an immediate reenlistment on 22 March 1989. The highest grade he obtained 
was Specialist/E-4.

4.  He served in Germany from 2 August 1989 through 9 February 1993.

5.  The applicant’s record is void of a complete separation packet containing the specific 
facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing. However, a 
memorandum, dated 22 January 1993, shows he was recommended for separation 
from service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations 
– Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 14-12c (2), for misconduct - commission of a serious 
offense.

6.  The separation authority on 1 February 1993, approved the applicant's request for 
conditional waiver and the chain of command discharge recommendation. He directed 
the applicant be discharged with a General Discharge Certificate.

7.  The applicant was discharged on 11 February 1993. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions 
of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct. His service was 
characterized as under honorable conditions (general), Separation Code JKK and 
Reentry Code 3. His DD Form 214 listed his continuous honorable service. He was 
credited with 6 years, 2 months, and 23 days of net active service. He was awarded or 
authorized the Army Service Ribbon.

8.  The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade 
of his discharge. After careful review and consideration on 13 December 1996, the 
ADRB found his discharge was both proper and equitable and denied his petition for 
relief. However, the Board voted to change his narrative reason for discharge to 
"misconduct" instead of "misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs" 

9.  By memorandum, dated 21 October 2022, the applicant was asked to provide 
medical documentation to support his PTSD issue. He was given a 30-day suspense; 
however, he did not respond.

10.  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.

11.  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.

12.  MEDICAL REVIEW: 

    a.  The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting reconsideration of his previous 
request for upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge. He contends 
his misconduct was associated with PTSD. 

    b.  The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMR 
Record of Proceedings (ROP). Pertinent to this advisory are the following: 1) The 
applicant enlisted into the Regular Army on 19 November 1986; 2) He served in 
Germany from 2 August 1989 through 9 February 1993; 3) The applicant’s record is 
void of a complete separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances 
surrounding his discharge processing. However, a memorandum, dated 
22 January 1993, shows he was recommended for separation from service under the 
provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c for misconduct - commission of a serious 
offense; 4) On 1 February 1993 the separation authority approved the applicant's 
request for conditional waiver and the chain of command discharge recommendation; 5) 
The applicant was discharged on 11 February 1993 under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct.

    c.  A review of the electronic military medical record (AHLTA) was not conducted as 
the system was not in use during the applicant’s time in service.  No hardcopy military 
BH-related records were provided for review.  A review of the VA electronic medical 
record (JLV) showed the applicant is 10 percent service-connected (SC) for tinnitus.  
The applicant does not have a BH-related SC diagnosis.  Records showed that the 
applicant applied for SC disability for PTSD related to traumatic experiences he endured 
while deployed in the Gulf War.  However, that claim was denied as there was no 
evidence in the records to support the applicant’s having ever deployed to Southwest 
Asia or served in a combat or hostile military environment.  Since the applicant’s initial 
claim, records show he continued reporting PTSD symptoms related to combat and has 
been diagnosed with PTSD related to combat, as the provider appear to have taken his 
account at face value and rendered the diagnosis.  Between 2017 and December 2022 
the applicant submitted 4 additional disability related claims, however none of those 
claims were related to PTSD, likely due to a lack of evidence to support combat 
deployment.

    d.  The applicant has a significant history of BH-related engagement that appears to 
have begun at the Washington, DC VA on 18 September 2013 whereby he reported to 
the ED with suicidal and homicidal ideation. Records showed the applicant called the 
suicide hotline due to homeless and being overwhelmed and was directed to go to the 
ED. While in the ED the applicant reported being homeless and overwhelmed with 
issues with his girlfriend, causing him to think about killing himself and his children.  He 
also reported a previous suicide attempt, by firearm, that was interrupted by police, and 
a history of heavy alcohol use for the past 10 years. The applicant was diagnosed with 
Mood Disorder NOS, with a rule out of PTSD, Alcohol Abuse vs. Dependence, 
Marijuana Abuse, with a rule out of Substance Induced Major Depression. 
He was psychiatrically hospitalized until 28 September 2013.  

    e.  During hospitalization the applicant reported a history of intimate personal 
violence to include physical assault of his wife resulting in being charged with battery, 
homicidal ideation characterized by thoughts of killing his wife and kids, significant 
alcohol and marijuana abuse, and a history of combat-related PTSD.  He reported he 
“saw combat with desert training, guarding missiles and night movements”. He stated 
that he “did kill in the military” but refused to talk about it any further. The applicant’s 
reported PTSD related symptoms included flashbacks, nightmares, and hypervigilance.  
His diagnoses at discharge were Mood Disorder NOS with possible psychotic features, 
PTSD, Marijuana Abuse, and Alcohol Dependence. 

    f.  An encounter note dated 24 October 2013 showed the applicant was seen for 
evaluation for substance abuse treatment.  He endorsed a history of marijuana and 
alcohol use since 1985 and reported that he drinks every day, multiple times per day 
and used marijuana multiple times per week.  The applicant expressed interest in 
substance abuse treatment and was scheduled for follow-up.  Records showed he 
engaged in treatment at the Washington DC VA until care was transferred to the 
Columbia SC VA on 4 February 2014.  During the 4 February encounter the applicant 
reported struggles with depression since being in the military, a history of combat 
exposure, and that he investigated soldiers for substance abuse while stationed in 
Germany. He also endorsed a history of a single treatment session for depression while 
on active duty but reportedly was not afforded follow-up.  The applicant was diagnosed 
with PTSD, Alcohol Abuse, and Cannabis Abuse, scheduled for follow-up and a referral 
was placed for substance abuse treatment and detox. Records show the applicant 
entered the substance abuse treatment program on or about 25 February 2014 however 
records were void of the applicant attending any treatment sessions.     

    g.  His next encounter appears to have occurred on 12 May 2014 whereby the 
applicant complained that no one was helping him, that he needed money, and was 
sleeping in his car.  Records showed the applicant was enrolled into the Grant Per Diem 
Program (GDP) on 13 June 2014 for housing and supplemental assistance. An 
encounter note dated 1 April 2016 showed a woman claiming to be the mother of the 
applicant’s children contacted the GDP program and informed them that the applicant 
was not homeless, was in fact residing with her and was faking his diagnoses in hopes 
of getting disability; she conceded however that the applicant had a substance abuse 
problem. Upon learning of the woman’s contact the veteran reasserted he was in fact 
homeless and as the conversation continued the applicant reported suicidal and 
homicidal ideation.  A wellness check was initiated but the applicant was not found at 
the location he provided while on the phone with the provider.  On 28 April 2016 the 
applicant resurfaced for a BH encounter, reported still having SI without plan or intent. 
    h.  The applicant appears to have continued engaging in BH-related care, 
intermittently, and receiving GPD assistance, off and on, through 1 February 2023.  The 
applicant most recent BH-related encounter showed him reporting continued anxiety 
and stress, associated his sister struggling with cancer, fear of losing his job and 
becoming homeless, and being denied benefits.  He also reiterated a history of combat 
related trauma associated with deployment during the Gulf War from 1991 – 1993. 

    i.  The applicant contends his misconduct was associated with PTSD related to 
traumatic experiences endured during his deployment to Southwest Asia.  A review of 
the records showed the applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD by VA providers, 
based on his reports of combat exposure.  However, a review of the records also 
showed that the applicant applied for SC for PTSD related to traumatic experiences he 
reportedly experienced while deployed in the Gulf War and the claim was denied. A VA 
Decision Letter dated 4 December 2014 stated, in part, there was no evidence in the 
records to support the applicant’s having ever deployed to Southwest Asia or having 
served in a combat or hostile military environment.  Subsequent the applicant’s initial 
claim, he continued reporting PTSD symptoms related to combat and has been 
diagnosed with PTSD combat, as the provider appear to have taken his account at face 
value. Between 2017 and December 2022 the applicant submitted 4 additional disability 
related claims, however none were related to PTSD, likely due to a lack of evidence to 
support combat-related service.  

    j.  Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that 
there is insufficient evidence in the records that the applicant had a condition or 
experience that mitigated his misconduct.  However, he contends his misconduct was 
related to PTSD 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 contends his misconduct was 
associated with PTSD and has been diagnosed with PTSD related to combat, by VA 
providers.    

		(2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. 

		(3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
No.  Although the applicant contends his misconduct was associated with PTSD related 
to traumatic experiences endured during his deployment to Southwest Asia, and a 
review of the records showed the applicant has been diagnosed with combat-related 
PTSD by VA providers, there is no evidence in the record to support the applicant was 
ever deployed to a combat or hostile environment.  In fact, records showed that the 
applicant applied for SC disability for PTSD related to combat exposure in 2014 and the 
claim was denied. A VA Decision Letter dated 4 December 2014 stated, in part, there 
was no evidence in the records to support the applicant’s having ever deployed to 
Southwest Asia or having served in a combat or hostile military environment.  
Subsequent the applicant’s initial claim, the continued reporting PTSD symptoms 
related to combat and was subsequently diagnosed but the fact still remains that there 
is no evidence in the records to support his claims of combat deployment.  Given that 
that there is no evidence in the record that the applicant was diagnosed or treated for a 
BH-related condition during service, the fact that there is no evidence the applicant was 
ever deployed to a combat or hostile environment, and his previous denial of SC related 
to PTSD by the VA, it is the opinion of this advisor the applicant did not have a condition 
or experience that mitigated his misconduct.  

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  The Board determined 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’s complete separation packet is not 
available for review. However, other evidence shows he was discharged on 11 February 
1993 due to Misconduct – Commission of a Serious Offense and his service was 
characterized as under honorable conditions (general). He was credited with 6 years, 2 
months, and 23 days of net active service. 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 
insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors to overcome the misconduct. The 
applicant provided insufficient evidence of post-service achievements or letters of 
reference in support of a clemency determination. Based on a preponderance of 
evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received 
upon separation was not in error or unjust.
?
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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number 
AR20120022367 on 14 April 1999

	 
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 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. 

2.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the 
separation of enlisted personnel. 

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge). An honorable discharge was a 
separation with honor; commanders issued an honorable discharge certificate based on 
the Soldier's proper military behavior and proficient duty performance. Commanders 
were to give due consideration to the Soldier's age, length of service, and general 
aptitude. Where there were infractions of discipline, commanders were to assess the 
extent of those infractions as well as the seriousness of the offenses. 

	b.  Chapter 14 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating 
members for misconduct. Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a 
pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, 
desertion, or absences without leave. Action would be taken to separate a member for 
misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was 
unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) was 
normally considered appropriate. However, the separation authority could direct a 
general discharge if such was merited by the Soldier's overall record.

3.  On 3?September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge 
Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 
(BCM/NRs) 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. 

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 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. 

5.  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. 

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20220008116


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1