IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 16 March 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220008562


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

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

*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge) in lieu of DD Form 149
*	Personal statement 
*	Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits letter

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 was discharged from the military in 2008 immediately after a 15-month tour in 
Iraq. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), severe anxiety, and 
depression in 2014 [by the VA] and was awarded benefits for that condition in 2020. It 
took the military 11 years to accept his disposition and those same 11 years to 
acknowledge that he even had those issues. During those years, he used numerous 
tactics to effectively cope with the chaos inside him stemming for "war".
   
   b.  During that time, he has accomplished nothing but more chaos and disaster; 
although, he has become accustomed to his condition and the understanding in its 
entirety. Once he adopted that notion, he realized those detrimental circumstances that 
he was placed in at a young age should be rectified and not villainous.
   
   c.  He returned home from a 15-month tour in April 2018 (the place where civilization 
is that of a third world country and violence is the answer to all questions) and was not 
offered one class or any advice or guidance to move forward. Many Veterans has no 
idea a problem existed because the money aspect clouded their reasoning. None of 
them know everything they just endured, and will cause them to be forever separate 
from American society. Most of them were on average maybe 21-25 years of age and 
turned to drugs, alcohol, or bad practices to cope daily with the mental anguish. He 
admits his life post-military has not been of great multitude but can say that his service 
should be enough to be considered "honorable." He has created a bridge that connects 
him back into normalcy within society. Granting him this upgrade will help him to 
progress further not just for his sake but his family.

3.  On the applicant's application, he indicates PTSD and other mental health issues as 
contributing and mitigating factors in the circumstances that resulted in his separation.

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 May 2006, for 3 years. He 
completed training with award of military occupational specialty 92F (Petroleum Supply 
Specialist). He served in Iraq for an undetermined period.

5.  The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of 
Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 19 May 2007, for violation 
of a general order by entering the room of a Soldier of another gender, on or about 
27 April 2007; failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty and for 
leaving from his place of duty, on or about 7 May 2007.His punishment was reduction to 
E-1, 14 days of extra duty, and forfeiture of $303.00 pay for one month (suspended).

6.  The suspended sentence was vacated on 27 May 2007 when the applicant 
assaulted a senior noncommissioned officer (NCO).

7.  Before a summary court-martial on 13 August 2007, the applicant was found guilty of 
disobeying a lawful order, disrespect to an NCO, dereliction of duty, assault on an NCO, 
and communicating a threat. His was sentenced to 45 days of hard labor and forfeiture 
of $867 pay for one month. The sentence was approved on 22 August 2007.

8.  Between 4 May 2007 and 4 June 2008, the applicant received adverse counseling 
on 10 occasions for various infractions including but not limited to disobeying a lawful 
order, disrespect to an NCO, dereliction of duty, assault on an NCO, communicating a 
threat, leaving his guard post without being properly relieved, being absent without 
leave, failure to obtain a new driver's license, lying to an NCO, and being late for duty.

9.  A court incident report shows the applicant was arrested on the charge of felony 
possession of ecstasy on 1 June 2008.  

10.  A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 11 June 2008, 
shows the applicant had no abnormalities in behavior, level of orientation, mood, 
thinking process, thought content, or memory. He was determined to be mentally 
capable to understand and participate in the proceedings deemed appropriate by 
command.

11.  The applicant tested positive for marijuana on a 30 June 2008 random urinalysis.  

12.  The applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant on 6 August 2008, of 
his intent to initiate separation action him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), Chapter 14, for misconduct.

13.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel on 13 August 2008. He was advised of 
the basis for the contemplated discharge, the possible effects of an under other than 
honorable conditions discharge, and the procedures and rights that were available to 
him. The applicant voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative 
separation board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service of not less than 
under honorable conditions. There is no evidence he submitted any further statements 
on his own behalf. 

14.  The applicant's immediate commander formally recommended his separation from 
service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for 
misconduct. 

15.  The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the waiver and the 
separation with a general discharge.

16.  The separation authority approved the conditional waiver and the recommended 
discharge on 28 October 2008, with a General Discharge Certificate.

17.  The applicant was discharged on 7 November 2008, in the pay grade of E-1. 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(2), for 
misconduct – drug abuse and his service characterization was under honorable 
conditions (general). He was credited with 2 years, 1 month, and 11 days of net active 
service. He is shown to have had two periods of lost time totaling 139 days. His awards 
are listed as the Army Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, and the 
Army Service Ribbon.

18.  The applicant provides a VA Summary of Benefits letter that shows he is in receipt 
of a 70 percent disability evaluation, but does not indicate what condition(s) the 
evaluation is for.

19.  The applicant was asked to provide medical documentation to support his diagnosis 
of PTSD or other mental health issues on 14 November 2022. There is no indication he 
responded to this request.
20.  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.  

21.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

    a.  The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting an upgrade of his under 
honorable conditions, general, discharge to honorable.  He contends his misconduct 
was related to 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 11 May 2006; 2) The applicant accepted 
nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ) on 19 May 2007, for violation of a general order by entering the 
room of a Soldier of another gender, on or about 27 April 2007 for failure to go at the 
prescribed time to his appointed place of duty and for leaving from his place of duty, on 
or about 7 May 2007; 3) Before a summary court-martial on 13 August 2007, the 
applicant was found guilty of disobeying a lawful order, disrespect to an NCO, 
dereliction of duty, assault on an NCO, and communicating a threat; 4) Between 4 May 
2007 and 4 June 2008, the applicant received adverse counseling on 10 occasions for 
various infractions including but not limited to disobeying a lawful order, disrespect to an 
NCO, dereliction of duty, assault on an NCO, communicating a threat, leaving his guard 
post without being properly relieved, being absent without leave, failure to obtain a new 
driver's license, lying to an NCO, and being late for duty; 5) A court incident report 
shows the applicant was arrested on the charge of felony possession of ecstasy on 1 
June 2008; 6) The applicant tested positive for marijuana on a 30 June 2008 random 
urinalysis; 7) The applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant on 6 August 
2008, of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), Chapter 14, for 
misconduct; 8) The applicant was discharged accordingly on 7 November 2008, under 
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c.

    c.  The electronic military medical record, AHLTA, VA electronic medical record, JLV, 
and ROP were reviewed. A review of AHLTA showed the applicant’s first BH-related 
engagement, while on active duty, occurred on 11 June 2008, whereby he underwent a 
mental status evaluation related to his administrative separation and was determined to 
be mentally capable to understand and participate in any proceedings deemed 
appropriate by command.  The applicant’s next encounter appears to have occurred on 
15 September 2008 whereby he was seen in the Clinic complaining of stress and 
frustration associated with legal issues with civilian authorities, being on extra duty after 
being charged in the military, his pending separation, and anger issues that began 
toward the end of his deployment in Iraq.  He reported that upon his return from 
deployment he found himself isolating from others, drinking alcohol, and using drugs. 
He was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and scheduled for follow-up.  The applicant 
was next seen for an ASAP evaluation on 16 September 2008 subsequent a positive 
UA for THC.  He was diagnosed with Cannabis-related Disorder.  AHLTA was void of 
any other BH-related treatment records for the applicant.	

    d.  A review of JLV showed the applicant 70 percent service-connected (SC) for 
Anxiety Disorder.  His first BH-related encounter with the VA appears to have occurred 
at the Dublin GA VA on 21 October 2014, whereby he reported problems with anger 
and frustration since returning from deployment to Iraq.  He reported often feeling on 
edge, and that anything that reminds him of war causing him to go into “panic mode and 
start taking action”. The applicant was diagnosed with a rule-out of PTSD and 
scheduled for follow-up.  He was also provided information for filing a claim as he 
expressed interest in filing a claim for PTSD. An encounter noted dated 5 February 
2015 showed the applicant reported multiple traumatic experiences while deployed to 
Iraq to include daily incoming artillery fire, loss of friends to combat, and assault from 
fellow soldiers who would “jump on him and put his face in the dirt”.  Although the 
provider did not outline a criterion A trauma or other criteria met for the diagnosis, the 
applicant was diagnosed with PTSD.  However, on 19 February 2015 the applicant sat 
for an Initial PTSD DBQ Examination and at the end of the evaluation the examiner did 
not render a diagnosis citing the following: 

Mr. Joyner appears to have given a false portrayal of the circumstances of his 
conviction and incarceration today, and a different false portrayal to a different 
VAstaffer in 10/2014. Therefore, his reliability as an informant cannot be supported. 
Writer cannot base any MH diagnosis upon Mr. uncorroborated self-report alone. If 
there are STRs documenting his claim of combat stress treatment in-service, those 
might support a diagnosis of PTSD or other service-connected disorder, but these 
are not to be found in VBMS, VirtualVA, ViataWeb, nor any other source available to 
this writer. If these reports can be located, for example in a paper C-file, rater is 
advised to send them to this writer with a request for an addendum and I will 
reconsider today's opinion.  

    e.  The applicant underwent to additional PTSD DBQ on 16 August 2019, and 17 
June 2022 whereby he was diagnosed with Unspecified Anxiety Disorder (August 2019) 
and Adjustment Disorder Chronic, with Adult Antisocial Personality Traits (June 2022), 
respectively.   Although the applicant was diagnosed by at least one VA provider with 
PTSD, reportedly associated with combat, the applicant failed to meet diagnostic criteria 
for PTSD when subject to examination using a standardized method as demonstrated 
during PTSD DBQ Examinations.  The applicant is 70 percent service-connected for 
Anxiety Disorder and records suggest he has engaged, intermittent, in outpatient 
treatment for Anxiety Disorder and Adjustment Disorder through March 2023.  

    f.  The applicant contends his misconduct was related to PTSD.  A review of the 
records showed the applicant was diagnosed during active duty with adjustment 
disorder and Cannabis-related Disorder.  Through the VA he is 70 percent SC for 
Anxiety Disorder, and was diagnosed by at least one VA provider with PTSD.  The 
diagnosis provider did not outline a criteria A trauma or other criteria resulting in the 
diagnosis.  Subsequent the initial diagnosis of PTSD the applicant underwent 3 PTSD 
Disability Benefits Questionnaire (PTSD DBQ) Examinations (19 February 2015, 16 
August 2019, 17 June 2022), which used a standardized PTSD assessment tool, and 
during each instance he was found to NOT meet diagnostic criteria for the disorder. No 
diagnosis was rendered during the 19 February 2019 examination as the provider noted 
the applicant was an unreliable historian after he gave altered versions of events to the 
examiner and another provider.  On 16 August 2019 the applicant was found to meet 
diagnostic criteria for Unspecified Anxiety Disorder, and on 17 June 2022, he met 
diagnostic criteria for Adjustment Disorder. 

    g.  Given the applicant is SC for Anxiety Disorder, the disorder is a mitigating factor in 
his misconduct characterized by marijuana abuse, as self-medicating of symptoms with 
drugs of abuse is normal sequela of Anxiety Disorder.  However, misconduct 
characterized by assault of an NCO, communicating a treat, being AWOL, disobeying a 
lawful order, and disrespect of a NCO, violation of a General Order, and dereliction of 
duty are not mitigated as Anxiety Disorder does not impair one’s ability to differentiate 
between right and wrong and adhere to the right.  As it relates to felony possession of 
ecstasy, Anxiety Disorder would be a mitigating factor if the drugs were intended for 
personal use.  

    h.  Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral 
Health Advisor that there is evidence in the records that the applicant had a condition or 
experience that partially mitigated his misconduct.  

?
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 is 70 percent SC for 
Anxiety Disorder.  He also contends his misconduct was related to PTSD, 
however, he is not SC for PTSD after not meeting diagnostic criteria during 
three separate PTSD DBQ Examinations.

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

3.	Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
Partially.  The applicant contends his misconduct was related to PTSD.  A 
review of the records showed the applicant was diagnosed during active duty 
with adjustment disorder and Cannabis-related Disorder.  Through the VA he 
is 70 percent SC for Anxiety Disorder, and was diagnosed by at least one VA 
provider with PTSD.  The diagnosis provider did not outline a criteria A 
trauma or other criteria resulting in the diagnosis.  Subsequent the initial 
diagnosis of PTSD the applicant underwent 3 PTSD Disability Benefits 
Questionnaire (PTSD DBQ) Examinations (19 February 2015, 16 August 
2019, 17 June 2022), which used a standardized PTSD assessment tool, and 
during each instance he was found to NOT meet diagnostic criteria for the 
disorder. No diagnosis was rendered during the 19 February 2019 
examination as the provider noted the applicant was an unreliable historian 
after he gave altered versions of events to the examiner and another provider.  
On 16 August 2019 the applicant was found to meet diagnostic criteria for 
Unspecified Anxiety Disorder, and on 17 June 2022, he met diagnostic criteria 
for Adjustment Disorder. 
Given the applicant is SC for Anxiety Disorder, the disorder is a mitigating 
factor in his misconduct characterized by marijuana abuse, as self-medicating 
of symptoms with drugs of abuse is normal sequela of Anxiety Disorder.  
However, misconduct characterized by assault of an NCO, communicating a 
treat, being AWOL, disobeying a lawful order, and disrespect of a NCO, 
violation of a General Order, and dereliction of duty are not mitigated as 
Anxiety Disorder does not impair one’s ability to differentiate between right 
and wrong and adhere to the right.  As it relates to felony possession of 
ecstasy, Anxiety Disorder would be a mitigating factor if the drugs were 
intended for personal use.  


?
BOARD DISCUSSION:

The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, 
evidence in the records, a medical review, and published Department of Defense 
guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered 
the applicant's statement, his record of service to include deployment, the frequency 
and nature of his misconduct, and the reason for his separation. The Board considered 
the applicant's behavioral health claim and the review and conclusions of the Agency 
Behavioral Health Advisor. The applicant provided no evidence of post-service 
achievements or letters of reference in support of a clemency determination. The Board 
found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and concurred with the 
conclusion of the medical advising official regarding his misconduct being only partially 
mitigated by PTSD.  Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined 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 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.  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 14-12c (Commission of a Serious Offense) applied to Soldiers who 
committed a serious military or civilian offense, when required by the specific 
circumstances warrant separation and a punitive discharge was or could be authorized 
for that same or relatively similar offense under the UCMJ. The separation reason in all 
separations authorized by paragraph 14-12c(2) for will be "misconduct-abuse of illegal 
drugs."

4.  The Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) 
provided clarifying guidance to Service Discharge Review Boards and Service 
BCM/NRs on 24 February 2016 [Carson Memorandum]. The memorandum directed the 
BCM/NRs to waive the statute of limitations. Fairness and equity demand, in cases of 
such magnitude that a Veteran's petition receives full and fair review, even if brought 
outside of the time limit. Similarly, cases considered previously, either by Discharge 
Review Boards or BCM/NRs, but without benefit of the application of the Supplemental 
Guidance, shall be, upon petition, granted de novo review utilizing the Supplemental 
Guidance. Guidance documents are not limited to UOTHC discharge characterizations 
but rather apply to any petition seeking discharge relief including requests to change the 
narrative reason, re-enlistment codes, and upgrades from general to honorable 
characterizations.

5.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to 
Military Discharge Review Boards and BCM/NRs, on 25 July 2018 [Wilkie 
Memorandum], 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.)	AR20220008562


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1