IN THE CASE OF:. 

		BOARD DATE: 14 March 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220008208


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Her under honorable conditions (general) discharge be 
upgraded.  

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

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Walmart Prescription forms 

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 due to financial issues and other problems with her then 
spouse, she lost possession of her personal vehicles and received multiple Article 15s. 
This caused her more financial problems and she was pregnant at the time. After giving 
birth and going home on leave she dealt with having postpartum depression. She did 
not know that her separation would be a general discharge. Now as a single mother, 
she recently became employed by the U. S. Postal Service but did not receive any 
veteran's preference. 

3.  On her DD Form 149, the applicant indicates mental health issues as a contributing 
and mitigating factor in the circumstances that resulted in her separation. 

4.  The applicant enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 4 September 1991.She 
entered active duty for training (ADT) on 11 September 1991 and completed training 
with award of military occupational specialty (MOS) 76C (Equipment Records and Parts 
Specialist) on 11 February 1992. She was returned to the control of the USAR.

6.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 October 1992, for 3 years.

7.  Between 6 January 1993 and 20 September 1993, the applicant was formally 
counseled on 18 occasions for various infractions primarily dealing with financial 
problems and personal financial record keeping with six sessions related to her being 
absent from her place of duty.

8.  The record indicates the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment on or about 
20 May 1996, for four specifications of failure to go at the time prescribed to her 
appointed place of duty.

9.  The applicant’s record is void of the separation processing detailing the 
circumstances surrounding her discharge processing. However, a Constructive Notice 
of Discharge Memorandum, dated 18 March 1994 indicates Order Number 077-00219, 
issued by Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division Fort Riley on18 March 1994, discharged 
the applicant who was in an absent without leave status. 

10.  The applicant was discharged on 18 March 1994. Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows she was discharged under the 
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct. Her service 
characterization was under honorable conditions. She was credited with 1 year, 
3 months, and 16 days of net active service this period, with 5 months and 1 day of prior 
active service. She is shown to have had two periods of lost time totaling 56 days.

11.  The applicant provides copies of two undated prescriptions from Walmart for Vistaril 
and Sertraline.

12.  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.  

14.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

    a.  The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting an upgrade of her under 
honorable conditions, general, discharge.  She contends her misconduct was related to 
other mental health issues. 

    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 7 October 1992; 2) Between 6 January 
1993 and 20 September 1993, the applicant was formally counseled on 18 occasions 
for various infractions primarily dealing with financial problems and personal financial 
record keeping with six sessions related to her being absent from her place of duty; 3) 
The record indicates the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment on or about 20 May 
1996, for four specifications of failure to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place 
of duty; 4) The applicant’s record is void of the separation processing detailing the 
circumstances surrounding her discharge processing. However, a Constructive Notice 
of Discharge Memorandum, dated 18 March 1994 indicates Order Number 077-00219, 
issued by Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division Fort Riley on18 March 1994, discharged 
the applicant who was in an absent without leave status; 5) The applicant was 
discharged on 18 March 1994 under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, 
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) was void of any treatment history for the applicant and she does not have 
a service-connected disability.  Included in the applicant packed were copies of 
prescription forms for sertraline, dated 18 February 2022 and 23 March 2022.  
Sertraline is commonly used to treat depression. No hardcopy civilian medical records 
were provided for review.   

    d.  The applicant contends her misconduct was related to other mental health issues 
and referenced problems with her spouse and postpartum depression. But provided no 
evidence supporting a BH diagnosis or treatment during military service and a review of 
the records was void of a BH treatment history during service. Also, while the applicant 
provided copies of prescription forms for sertraline (commonly used to treat depression) 
from a civilian provider, prescriptions in year 2022 are not sufficient to establish 
postpartum depression during the applicant time in service, and she provide no civilian 
treatment records linking her current depression to military service. Additionally, the 
self-statement appears to suggest financial issues prior to giving birth, and the financial 
infractions appear to account for approximately two-thirds of her misconduct

    e.  Alternatively, if one take as fact the applicant suffered from postpartum depression 
during service, only conduct associated with failing to report to her place of duty would 
be mitigated, as lack of energy, motivation, and withdrawal or normal sequela of 
depression.  Misconduct related to financial mismanagement and AWOL would not be 
mitigated as postpartum depression does not impair one’s ability to differentiate 
between right and wrong and choose the right.  
    f.  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 her misconduct.  However, she contends her misconduct was 
related to other mental health issues and per Liberal Consideration guidance her 
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 her misconduct was 
associated with other mental health conditions, specifically postpartum depression and 
spousal issues.     

		(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.  The applicant contends her misconduct was related to other mental health issues 
and referenced problems with her spouse and postpartum depression. But provided no 
evidence supporting a BH diagnosis or treatment during military service and a review of 
the records was void of a BH treatment history during service.  Also, while the applicant 
provided copies of prescription forms for sertraline (commonly used to treat depression) 
from a civilian provider, prescriptions in year 2022 are not sufficient to establish 
postpartum depression during the applicant time in service, and she provide no civilian 
treatment records linking her current depression to military service.  Additionally, the 
applicant’s self-statement appears to suggest financial issues prior to giving birth, and 
the financial infractions appear to account for approximately two-thirds of her 
misconduct. Alternatively, if one take as fact the applicant suffered from postpartum 
depression during service, only conduct associated with failing to report to her place of 
duty would be mitigated, as lack of energy, motivation, and withdrawal or normal 
sequela of depression.  Misconduct related to financial mismanagement and AWOL 
would not be mitigated as postpartum depression does not impair one’s ability to 
differentiate between right and wrong and choose the right.  

BOARD DISCUSSION:

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 separation packet is not available for 
review. Other evidence shows he was discharged due on 18 March 1994 for 
misconduct and her service characterization was under honorable conditions. She was 
credited with 1 year, 3 months, and 16 days of active service this period, and she had 
two periods of lost time totaling 56 days. 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 no 
evidence supporting a behavioral health (BH) diagnosis or treatment during military 
service and a review of the records was void of a BH treatment history during service. 
There is insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors to overcome the 
misconduct. The applicant provided no 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:

Except for the correction addressed in Administrative Note(s) below, the Board found 
the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or 
injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient 
as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
	 
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the 
Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):

The applicant completed a period of ADT. She was awarded a MOS at the completion 
of training and was transferred back to the USAR. Army Regulation 635-200 provides 
that when a Reserve Component Soldier successfully completes initial ADT, the 
characterization of service is Honorable unless directed otherwise by the separation 
authority. Please reissue her a DD Form 214 for the period ending 11 February 1992 
showing her character of service as Honorable.

REFERENCES:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code (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, 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.

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

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

	b.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. 
When authorized, it is issued to Soldiers whose military record is satisfactory but not 
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

	c.  Chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct) establishes policy and prescribes 
procedures for separating personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary 
infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil 
authorities, desertion, and absence without leave.

	d.  Paragraph 14-12b (A pattern of misconduct) states a Soldier may be discharged 
for pattern of misconduct consisting of one of the following:  
		(1) Discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities. 

		(2) Discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline 
including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the 
UCMJ, Army regulations, the civil law, and time-honored customs and traditions of the 
Army.

4.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to 
Military Discharge Review Boards and BCM/NRs on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, 
injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically 
granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the 
court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a 
sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes 
in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. 

	a.  This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and 
principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining 
whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, Boards 
shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy 
changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, 
official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, 
and uniformity of punishment. 

	b.  Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of 
service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not 
result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses 
or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for 
the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont.)	AR20220008208


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1