IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 1 March 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220008250


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Through counsel change his character of service from under 
other than honorable conditions to honorable due to his mental health condition.

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

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), 22 April 2022
*	Self-authored letter, 1 November 2021
*	Counsel letter, 28 April 2022
*	Medical Record, 20 November 1998
*	Orders Number 89-41, 30 March 1999
*	Master Problem List

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:

	a.  He joined the U.S. Army in June of 1997. Basic training went very well. By the 
time he reached his permanent duty station, things took a drastic turn for the worse. 
There was a sense of hopelessness among all the lower enlisted ranks. This 
hopelessness resulted in an endemic of self-destructive behavior that he believes lies 
primarily, if not solely, at the foot of his chain-of-command. 

	b.  During President terms of office, defense spending was cut. Some of the direct 
results of this included, but are not limited to, extreme reductions in missions, 
promotions, and personnel, which resulted in obscene amounts of free time for the 
servicemembers. Chains of command were encouraged to chapter out newly enlisted 
Soldiers as a method of grooming their own records as officers; ones who are strong 
disciplinarians that will not tolerate misbehavior. Ironically, it was those same officers 
who created the atmosphere which led to the misbehavior.
	c.  The Height and Weight policy was used as an instrument of fear to encourage the 
lower enlisted Soldiers to exempt themselves from the common rights and privileges 
afforded to regular Soldiers, such as promotions and leave. If a Soldier, including him 
suffered from obesity and lost significant weight before they entered the Army, then the 
change in physical appearance due to excess skin around the waistline made passing a 
tape test virtually impossible even if that individuals' body percent fat was within range.

	d.  After he joined the Army, he observed that drinking and drug use was a daily 
occurrence for Soldiers. It was substantially easier to get drunk and high than it was to 
avoid it, and if one was already manifesting the signs and symptoms of alcoholism and 
addiction, as he was, then escape from substance abuse became virtually impossible.

	e.  Prior to his discharge, his commanding officer, Captain tried to charge him with a 
field grade Article 15 for seeking medical treatment due to consumption of ecstasy. The 
Judge Advocate General explained that the Article 15 was unlawful because the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits judicial and non-judicial action against men 
and women in the military who admit to drug consumption, if they believe it to be life 
threatening. 

	f.  Since his discharge he has been charged with driving under the influence three 
times, drank his way out of college with a 3.8 grade point average (GPA), and lost 
countless jobs. However, he achieved and sustained sobriety for a period of four years; 
three years; and another three years. He believes the conditions at Hunter Army Airfield 
in contributed to the circumstances which led to his wrongful discharge. There are many 
good, resourceful, and productive Soldiers struggling that should receive help from the 
military, instead of being punished for their addictions. (see full statement).

3.  His counsel states:

	a.  After the [applicant’s] discharge he was unsure what to do with his life. He had 
not planned on leaving the service so quickly. He struggled for many years in 
transitional housing and with substance abuse. Due to his character of service, he was 
unable to afford higher education and therefore could not attend college. Instead, he 
worked in various jobs doing mechanical work. He sought help by attending numerous 
alcohol anonymous and drug substance abuse programs, relapsing at times, but always 
attempting to rehabilitate himself and seek help.

	b.  [Applicant] is entitled to relief on the basis of an injustice in order to ensure 
fundamental fairness. Although BCMRs do not have a clearly codified standard of 
review, the United States Code provides that BCMRs may change the military records 
of a former member of the armed forces in order to correct any "error or injustice." 
Pursuant to the Wilkie Memorandum, BCMRs are authorized to grant relief for errors or 
injustices in order to ensure fundamental fairness. In determining whether to grant relief 
on the basis of an injustice, BCMRs are advised to follow standards set forth by the 
Secretary of Defense, provided in the Wilkie Memorandum. These standards include 
that: punishment should only be made to the extent necessary, to rehabilitate the 
greatest extent possible, and to favor second chances in situations in which individuals 
have paid for their misdeeds; character and rehabilitation should weigh more heavily 
than achievement alone; an honorable discharge characterization does not require a 
flawless military service record, and can include instances of minor misconduct; and a 
lack of uniformity and unfair disparities in punishments may serve as a basis for relief.

	c.  The Leadership at Hunter Army Airfield punished the [applicant] beyond the 
extent necessary, while failing to rehabilitate to the greatest extent possible by providing 
him with a second chance. Pursuant to the standards and guidance set forth under the 
Wilkie Memorandum, it is consistent with military custom and practice to punish only to 
the extent necessary, to rehabilitate to the greatest extent possible, and to favor second 
chances in situations in which individuals have paid for their misdeeds. 

	d.  The applicant made substantial efforts of rehabilitation post-service. When 
making its determination, BCMRs should recognize that relief is not only reserved for 
veterans with exceptional aptitude or achievement. Instead, a veteran's character and 
rehabilitation should weigh more heavily when granting relief.

	e.  The applicant is entitled to relief despite his non-violent misconduct due to 
mitigating circumstances. Pursuant to guidance and standards provided by the 
Secretary of Defense, BCMRs are also to consider that an honorable discharge 
characterization does not require a flawless military record. The Wilkie Memorandum 
states that despite some instances of minor misconduct, many veterans still receive an 
honorable discharge. Specifically, BCMRs should acknowledge that relief is generally 
more appropriate for nonviolent offenses than for violent ones.

	f.  There was a lack of uniformity and unfair disparities in punishments at Hunter 
Army Airfield. When reviewing a veteran's request for a discharge upgrade, it is 
necessary for a BCMR to consider similarly situated servicemembers that receive 
disparate punishments. Although a lack of uniformity and disparity in punishments may 
be attributed to a legitimate and valid reasoning for so, a BCMR should nevertheless 
take such circumstances into account during their analysis in order to determine 
whether a discharge was due to injustice or inequality. Further, there was a disparity in 
punishments pertaining to instances of misconduct involving drugs. Other 
servicemembers at Hunter Army Airfield who were caught consuming and using drugs 
were offered substance abuse counseling, allowing them to complete their military 
service, and to receive an Honorable discharge.

	g.  The [applicant] is entitled to a relief due to mental health conditions. Additionally, 
BCMRs are to follow standards set out by the Secretary of Defense regarding requests 
for discharge upgrades due in whole or in part to mental health conditions. Requests for 
discharge on these grounds typically involve four determinations: (1) whether the 
veteran had a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; (2) 
whether that condition existed/experience occurred during military service; (3) whether 
that condition or experience actually excuses or mitigates the discharge; and (4) 
whether that condition or experience outweighs the discharge. Evidence in support of a 
request may include evidence of substance abuse and panic attacks or anxiety, and 
evidence of misconduct underlying a veteran's discharge may be evidence of a mental 
health condition. Further, a veteran's testimony alone may establish the existence of a 
condition, that said condition existed during or was aggravated by military service, and 
that the condition excuses or mitigates the discharge.

	h.  [Applicant] had a mental health condition which excuses and mitigates his 
discharge. During his service, the applicant suffered from a variety of mental health 
conditions. It was during this time that he was diagnosed with substance abuse 
(tobacco, ecstasy, and ETHO), and anxiety with panic attacks with an onset date of 
1998. These mental health diagnoses excuse and mitigate his discharge.

	i.   The applicant’s mental health condition existed and occurred during military 
service. A diagnosis of a mental health condition that the condition existed during 
military service will receive liberal consideration. Prior to his diagnoses, [applicant] 
experienced symptoms of anxiety, such as throat tightening and body tingling, and 
suffered from panic attacks. On 20 November 1998, [applicant] was admitted to the 
emergency room for a panic attack. He informed the medical staff that he was 
experiencing symptoms on and off for three days straight. Soon thereafter, he began 
seeking treatment for his mental health conditions. He was prescribed medication for his 
anxiety and panic attacks and received instructions on strategies to control his 
symptoms, such as self-hypnosis, relaxation therapy, and meditation. [Applicant] 
continued to follow up with his doctor regularly, with the frequency of visits depending 
on his symptoms.

	j.  [Applicant’s] mental health condition excuses and mitigates his discharge. 
Pursuant to the Kurta Memorandum, a mental health condition that may have 
reasonably existed at the time of discharge will be liberally considered as mitigating or 
excusing the discharge. Upon diagnosis of [applicant’s] mental health conditions, he 
sought treatment for his anxiety via medication, therapy and other non-pharmacologic 
strategies. He recognized that he had a problem and took sufficient steps to receive 
treatment as an effort to feel better. It was during this treatment that [applicant] and his 
doctor attributed some of his symptoms of anxiety and panic attacks to substance 
withdrawal. Although he wanted to receive treatment as an effort to feel better, it was 
much harder for him to improve his symptoms without continuing the use of drugs. He 
struggled to remain sober due to the frequency of drug use at his base and the 
symptoms he experienced. The incident leading to his discharge involved him suffering 
from an anxiety attack and ultimately, being punished for it. Given [applicant’s] mental 
health conditions which were present during his service, in conjunction with the toxic 
military culture which existed at Hunter Army Airfield, the relevant facts and 
circumstances constitute mitigation of his discharge.

	k.  [Applicant’s] mental health condition outweighs his discharge. The Secretary of 
Defense has provided guidance regarding mental health condition outweighing a 
discharge characterization. The supplemental guidance offered provides that a specific 
reason for discharge or misconduct may outweigh any mitigation from a mental health 
condition if the misconduct is deemed severe. Although any premeditated misconduct is 
not generally excused by a mental health condition, a substance-seeking behavior and 
efforts to self-medicate symptoms of a mental health condition warrant consideration.
During service and continuing thereafter, [applicant] has constantly battled with mental 
health conditions. Immediately following his discharge from service, he struggled 
immensely.

4.  On 27 June 1997, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed training 
and was awarded the military occupational specialty 55B (Ammunition Specialist).

5.  On 8 December 1997, he was assigned to the 260th Quartermaster Battalion, 
24th Ordnance Company, in Hunter Army Airfield, Savannah, GA.

6.  The applicant provides –

	a.  Medical records, which shows, in part, on 20 November 1998, the applicant was 
seen in the emergency care and treatment at Winn Army Community Hospital, Fort 
Stewart, GA with complaints of an anxiety attack, with throat tightening and tingling all 
over the body, on and off for three days. [Applicant] was diagnosed with anxiety, 
released with 24 hours quarters, and referred to the Troop Medical Clinic. [Applicant] 
appears to have good insight with regard to his substance abuse problems. Mild anxiety 
and panic symptoms. [Applicant] has been referred to a division mental health. 
[Applicant] was advised to take his --- consistently and instructed with regard to some 
non-pharma cologic strategies for controlling the anxiety and panic symptoms (self-
hypnosis, relaxation therapy, and mental imagery). 

	b.  A DA Form 5571 (Master Problem List), which shows, in part –

*	anxiety, panic, withdrawal from ETHO, date onset 1998
*	MDMA ecstasy abuse, date onset 1998
*	polysubstance abuse, date of occurrence December 1998
*	brief supportive psychotherapy, date of occurrence December 1998
7.  On 19 January 1999, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of 
his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of AR 635-200 
(Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-12c (Commission of a Serious Offense). The 
reason for his proposed actions was due to the applicant being drunk on duty. The 
commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and 
advised the applicant of his rights.

8.  On 19 January 1999, the applicant acknowledged receipt of him commander's intent 
to initiate separation action against him for patterns of misconduct. He consulted with 
counsel who advised him of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him under 
AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, and its effect; of the rights available to him; and the effect 
of any action taken by him in waiving him rights. He opted to make a statement on his 
own behalf. He acknowledged: 

*	he understood the effect of any waiver of rights; of the least favorable discharge 
he may receive as a result of the action; and the effect of each type of 
discharge/characterization of service
*	he understood that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian 
life if a general discharge under honorable conditions is issued to him
*	he further understood that as the result of issuance of a discharge under other 
than honorable conditions he may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a 
veteran under both federal and state laws 
*	he understood that, as the result of issuance of a discharge certificate/character 
of service which is less than honorable, he may make application to the Army 
Discharge Review Board or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records for 
upgrading; however, he realizes that consideration by the board does not 
automatically imply upgrading
*	he understood that he may until the date of the separation authority orders 
directs or approved him separation withdraw the waiver of any of the above right 
and request that an administration board if authorized to hear his case

9.  His statement shows, in part –

	a.  On 26 May he arrived 30 minutes late to work. He was breathalyzed at 0945 
hours in the Provosts Marshalls Office and found to have a blood alcohol content of 
.102, which is .053 above the maximum allowable limit. Since arriving to his unit, he has 
been a good Soldier, minus some sloppy appearances. He has been respectful to his 
non-commissioned officers, has a good work ethic, and an asset to his unit. 

	b.  On or about 1 June 1998, after receiving his Article 15 he requested to be 
admitted into the Alcohol Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPC). He 
was seen for three or four sessions by counselor. He was recommended for an anti-
abuse drug which would be used to curb the desire for alcohol. The following week First 
Sergeant drove him to his ADAPC (Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention Control, 
Program) appointment, however his counselor was on vacation. He was not informed 
on how he was going to continue the program.  

c	c.  About two and a half months later, he was enrolled by his commanding officer,. 
The enrollment occurred eight to eight and half months after his offense and his first 
attempt at a self-referral. It is known that his unit chapters out more first-time enlisted 
Soldiers than any other unit in the Army. At the time, he requested his discharge to be 
upgraded or retainment in the Army. (see full statement).

10.  On 19 January 1999, the applicant's immediate commander-initiated separation 
action against the applicant under Chapter 14-12c of AR 635-200 for being drunk on 
duty. He recommended a general under honorable conditions discharge. 

11.  On 12 March 1999, the separation authority approved his discharge under the 
provision of AR 635-200, Chapter paragraph 14-12c, and directed the issuance of a 
general under honorable conditions discharge. 

12.  The applicant was discharged from active duty on 6 April 1999. His DD Form 214 
shows he was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, with 
the issuance general, under other honorable conditions characterization of service. His 
DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 9 months, and 10 days of active service. It 
also shows in item 24 (Decorations) - National Defense Service Medal, Army Service 
Ribbon, Sharpshooter Qualification Badge with, Grenade Bar, and Marksman 
Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, M-16.

13.  There is no indication that the applicant requested an upgrade of his discharge from 
the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

14.  By regulation (AR 635-200), chapter 14 states action will be taken to separate a 
member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable 
or is unlikely to succeed. 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), commission of a serious 
offense, and convictions by civil authorities. A discharge under other than honorable 
conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  

15.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and 
him service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency 
determination guidance.

?
16.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

    a.  The applicant is applying to the ABCMR, with assistance of counsel, requesting an 
upgrade of his discharge to honorable due to his mental health condition.

    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)	Applicant’s assertions are summarized in ROP.  He, in essence, appears to 
assert a sense of hopelessness among the lower enlisted ranks due to chain of 
command issues leading misbehavior including drinking and drug use. He 
describes multiple DUI since discharge, negative impact of alcohol use on his 
college progress, and has lost numerous jobs. He indicates that service 
members should receive help rather than be punished for their addictions.
(2)	Counsel’s numerous assertions are summarized in the ROP, in general asserting 
injustice and unfairness associated with applicant’s discharge.  For example, 
there was a lack of uniformity and unfair disparities in punishments associated 
with substance use at Hunter Army Airfield. Counsel also asserts a mental health 
condition(s) which should mitigate his discharge, to include substance use 
disorders and anxiety with panic attacks with onset of 1998.  Among the 
assertions that applicant experienced symptoms of anxiety and panic and in 
November 1998 was admitted to emergency room for a panic attack with follow 
on treatment via medication and therapy.  “It was during this treatment that 
applicant and his doctor attributed some of his symptoms of anxiety and panic 
attacks to substance withdrawal.”
(3)	Applicant enlisted in the RA on 27 June 1997.
(4)	Medical records show in part on 20 November 1998 he was seen for complaints 
of anxiety attack, throat tightening, and tingling on and off for 3 days at Fort 
Stewart emergency department. He was diagnosed with anxiety.  Documentation 
notes he appears to have good insight into his substance abuse problems, with 
mild anxiety and panic symptoms. He had been referred to Division Mental 
Health.
(5)	On 19 January 1999 applicant was notified of intent to separate under AR 635-
200 paragraph 14-12c for commission of a serious offense (drunk on duty).
(6)	A statement noted that on or about 1 June 1998 after receiving Article 15 he 
requested to be admitted into ADAPCP and was seen for 3-4 sessions, was 
recommended for anti-abuse medication, but then was lost to follow-up after 
presenting for an appointment when his counselor was on vacation.  
Approximately 2.5 months later he was enrolled by his commanding officer 
approximately 8 months after his offense and self-referral.
(7)	The applicant was ultimately discharged on 6 April 1999 under AR 635-200 
paragraph 14-12c, general under honorable conditions.  The offense in question 
was being drunk on duty, per available records.
    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 other mental 
health conditions associated with application. Applicant has enlisted the assistance of 
counsel through the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law.

Personal statement dated 1 November 2021 reviewed.  In it, applicant acknowledges a 
substance abuse problem prior to entering the military. Other assertions are noted in the 
ROP, and the full statement is available for the Board’s review. He, in essence, 
attributes much of the climate of substance use in his unit (and his own use) to culture, 
morale, and chain of command issues.

Applicant’s Brief in Support of Claim was reviewed. The brief also references his pre-
enlistment history of alcohol and substance abuse, “however, the military culture and 
leadership at Hunter Army Airfield only aggravated his issues with substance abuse 
further” with easy access to substances of abuse to include alcohol and MDMA 
(ecstasy).  The brief asserts he was discharged after consuming MDMA and believed 
he had overdosed and needed medical care. The Brief also references “it was during 
this treatment that (applicant) and his doctor attributed some of his symptoms of anxiety 
and panic attacks to substance withdrawal” and it was difficult for him to improve his 
symptoms without continuing the use of drugs.

Statement of support dated 11 November 2021 references, in part, the culture of his unit 
and the ease of access to substances and notes his substance abuse was caught 
because he sought help.

Available medical records in the supporting documents were reviewed and are generally 
as summarized in the ROP. Of note is that certain records appear to have potentially 
important clinical information blacked out or redacted (eg Exhibit 8).  Exhibit 7 
references experience of anxiety attack, with apparent prescription for atarax (anti-
anxiety/antihistamine) and next day TMC follow up. Exhibit 8 indicates reason for visit, 
insomnia, and referral to behavioral science and ADACP; part of the assessment is 
blocked out but what remains shows mild anxiety and mild panic symptoms as 
diagnosis number 3.  It is unclear what important information the blocked portion may 
show to include diagnoses 1 and 2. The plan references referral to division mental 
health (among other redacted/blacked out statements) and follow-up in 1 week “sooner 
if more severe withdrawal symptoms develop.” Master Problem List (exhibit 6) includes 
tobacco abuse, anxiety and panic vs withdrawal from alcohol, MDMA/ecstasy abuse 
and again is partially redacted.

Applicant’s undated memo SUBJECT: Wrongful Separation was reviewed and 
appreciated, in which he referenced 26 May (1998?) incident in which he reported to 
work late and was found to have a BAC of .102 (above the allowable limit). He asserts 
he was unable to continue the ADACP program after his counselor went on vacation 
and subsequent re-enrollment by his commander.

    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 conditions. He spoke with a Social Worker on 19 June 2020 to 
discuss mental health access and employment issues.  He apparently had limited 
eligibility (humanitarian) but completed a mental health intake with a licensed clinical 
social worker on 16 July 2020 to potentially facilitate care in the community. He 
elaborated a long history of alcohol abuse/dependence with various degrees of impact 
on his life, with periods of sobriety to include 2011-2018. He described recurrent 
depression since approximately age 11 and was reportedly diagnosed with obsessive-
compulsive disorder in 2005 during a psychiatric or substance-related hospitalization, 
with obsessive-compulsive symptoms present since childhood.  He also reported sexual 
abuse as a child between ages 4-6 by a family friend/babysitter.  Multiple prior 
hospitalizations primarily associated with alcohol use and detox (at least 10 per note).  
He reportedly saw a psychologist between 1984-1989 (no details provided) and has 
attended AA groups off and on since 2005.  He was seen on that same day by a 
psychiatrist with generally the same history although psychiatric evaluation references 
seeing a psychologist for sexual abuse 1994-1999 (suspect 1984-1989 noted above are 
more accurate dates), again with a history of depression since age 11.  He was 
diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent and Alcohol Use Disorder in Early 
Remission.

    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 mental health conditions 
associated with the circumstances of his discharge and there is evidence of a pre-
enlistment history of depression and anxiety in addition to substance abuse that was 
exacerbated in service, contributory to discharge. 

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

3.	Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes.  
The applicant asserts mitigation due to mental health factors at the time of his 
offense/discharge and under liberal consideration guidelines his claims appear to 
have merit. He acknowledges that he had a pre-existing substance abuse condition, 
which as a stand-alone issue would not serve to mitigate the offense leading to 
discharge (drunk on duty, despite references in his application to MDMA use as the 
proximate factor). Although he cites medical documentation from active service to 
support the presence of anxiety and panic, it is the BH advisor’s interpretation of 
these records that, given the context, such symptoms are consistent with substance 
withdrawal (or intoxication) rather than primary anxiety symptoms; as noted above, it 
appears that relevant information may been redacted/blocked in these records which 
may have helped assess these records more definitively.  However, a thorough 
review of all available records to include admittedly limited VA documents includes 
references to childhood sexual abuse and a history of depression and anxiety since 
at least early adolescence, with an apparent post-discharge diagnosis of obsessive-
compulsive disorder. Under liberal consideration guidelines, such factors make it 
reasonable to opine that his pre-existing substance abuse concerns can be 
considered a form of self-medication for his history of abuse and pre-enlistment 
mood concerns; such use was then exacerbated once he entered the military. Given 
that substance abuse can be part of the natural course and history of mood/anxiety 
concerns, especially following exposure to trauma, the advisor finds that his mental 
health condition mitigates the offense of drunk on duty leading to discharge. It 
should be noted his substance misuse was not caused by the military, as he 
appears to assert at times, and there were decision points where he should have 
been more proactive in taking responsibility (e.g., failure to reschedule missed 
ADACP appointment that he attributed to external factors). The BH advisor will defer 
to the Board to consider the other relevant issues of propriety and equity raised by 
the applicant and counsel.
?
BOARD DISCUSSION:

After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within 
the military record, the Board found that relief was not 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 medical review, the Board 
considered the advising official finding there is evidence of a pre-enlistment history of 
depression and anxiety in addition to substance abuse that was exacerbated in service, 
contributory to discharge. However, the Board found insufficient evidence of in-service 
mitigation to overcome the misconduct. The Board noted, the applicant not his counsel 
provided post service achievements or character letters of support to weigh as a 
clemency determination. The applicant was discharged for misconduct and was 
provided an under honorable conditions (General) characterization of service.  The 
Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization is warranted as he did not 
meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel 
to receive an Honorable discharge.


BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

X	X	X	DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or 
injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient 
as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.


	 
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the 
Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

REFERENCES:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of 
military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or 
injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to 
timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in 
the interest of justice to do so.

2.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth 
the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. This regulation provides 
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 a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not 
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  

3.  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; TBI; 
sexual assault; sexual harassment. Boards were directed 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 that misconduct which led to the 
discharge.

4.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to 
Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 
on 25 July 2018 [Wilkie Memorandum], regarding equity, injustice, or clemency 
determinations.  Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal 
sentence.  Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 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.

5.  Section 1556 of Title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of the Army to 
ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency 
(ARBA) be provided with a copy of any correspondence and communications (including 
summaries of verbal communications) to or from the Agency with anyone outside the 
Agency that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as 
authorized by statute. ARBA medical advisory opinions and reviews are authored by 
ARBA civilian and military medical and behavioral health professionals and are 
therefore internal agency work product. Accordingly, ARBA does not routinely provide 
copies of ARBA Medical Office recommendations, opinions (including advisory 
opinions), and reviews to Army Board for Correction of Military Records applicants 
(and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20220008250


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1