IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 18 April 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220008910


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) 
discharge be upgraded. Additionally, he requests a personal appearance before the 
Board.

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

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) 
*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge)
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
*	Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Progress Notes (page 10) 
*	VA Progress Note, printed on 28 February 2022
*	Self-authored description of an incident
*	

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 he was suffering from undiagnosed combat related post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  He described in a self-authored description of an 
incident as follows:

	a.  Incident 1: White assigned to Bravo Company, 1/187th Regiment, 101 Airborne, 
During Desert Storm, they were setting up a hasty LZ (Landing zone). At one point, 
while receiving fire from the Iraqi soldiers, he went to throw his ruck sack out of the 
helicopter, his arm was entangled in one of the straps. It snatched him out of the 
helicopter causing him to fall over 6 feet or more to the ground resulting in a dislocated 
shoulder. His fellow soldiers had to drag him out of the line of fire to safety. This incident 
has caused him to have constant nightmares and replays in his mind how close he 
came to death. 

	b.  Incident 2: While assigned to Bravo Company, 1/187th Regiment, 101 Airborne, 
During Desert Storm, while delivering to his troops on the battlefield, he served as the 
door gunner on the Blackhawk helicopter he was using. While hovering approximately 
forty to Sixty feet above ground the helicopter suddenly lost power. There was a loud 
explosion in the engine compartment resulting in the helicopter taking a nosedive into 
the ground. Even though the was smoke, fire and sand everywhere, they were unable to 
exit the helicopter immediately because the rotors were still turning and striking the 
ground. Though no one was killed, a lot of them, received physical and mental injuries. 

	c.  Incident 3: While assigned to Bravo Company, 1/187th Regiment, 101 Airborne, 
During Storm, they were a part of the largest air assault mission, mass take off in the 
history of the U.S. Army. While lifting off in Iraq, the helicopter that was next to theirs 
drifted into their space. To avoid a collision, the pilot had to maneuver in such a way 
that the blades of their Blackhawk struck the ground causing the cargo that we were 
carrying to shift. It resulted broken legs and other injuries of some of the soldiers.

4.  The applicant's complete military records are not available for review; therefore, this 
case is being considered based on the documents he provides.

5.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows:

	a.  He entered active duty on 11 July 1988 and was discharged on 1 July 1991 in the 
rank/grade of private/E-1.

	b.  He served in military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).

	c.  He had 2 years, 11 months, and 20 days of net active service this period with 
1 year, 6 months, and 28 days of foreign service.

	d.  His awards are listed as the Army Achievement Medal, Army Service Ribbon, 
National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal with two bronze 
service stars, Combat Infantryman Badge, Overseas Service Ribbon, and the 
Marksman Qualification Badge with Rifle and Grenade bars.

	e.  His service was characterized as UOTHC and the reason and authority for 
separation is redacted; his narrative reason for separation was "For the Good of the 
Service."

6.  The VA Progress Notes provided indicate the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD 
and depression. He served in the Gulf War from September to April 1991 as a 
helicopter door gunner and was involved in two crashes. His symptoms started shortly 
after returning from the war. He further reported that he had a history of alcohol abuse, 
crack, and cocaine use. He had been in prison for 4 years and 2 months for theft and 
possession of [illegal] substances. 

7.  The absence of the applicant's separation packet means the Board is unable to 
determine the specific circumstances surrounding his discharge. However, because the 
Board has the applicant's DD Form 214, it must presume administrative regularity, 
meaning unless there is proof to the contrary, the Board assumes the Army's actions 
were administratively correct. As stated in ABCMR's governing regulation, the Board is 
not an investigative body, and the applicant bears the responsibility for providing 
evidence to validate that an error occurred in the processing of his separation. 

8.  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.

9.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

    a.  The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting an upgrade of his under other 
than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.  He contends he had 
PTSD which mitigated his misconduct.  
    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's complete military records are not available for review; 2) He entered active 
duty on 11 July 1988; 3) The applicant was discharged on 1 July 1991; 4) His awards 
are listed as the Army Achievement Medal, Army Service Ribbon, National Defense 
Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal with two bronze service stars, Combat 
Infantryman Badge, Overseas Service Ribbon, and the Marksman Qualification Badge 
with Rifle and Grenade bars; 5) His service was characterized as UOTHC and the 
reason and authority for separation is redacted; his narrative reason for separation was 
"For the Good of the Service."
    c.  The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting 
documents and the applicant’s military available service records. The VA’s Joint Legacy 
Viewer (JLV) was also examined.

    d.  The applicant asserts he was experiencing PTSD which mitigates his misconduct 
during his active service. There is no evidence the applicant reported behavioral health 
symptoms while on active service. In addition, there is no available information on the 
specific behavior which resulted in the applicant’s discharge. However, the applicant 
was deployed in support of Desert Storm/Shield. JLV provided evidence that the 
applicant has been diagnosed with legal problems, cocaine abuse/dependence, drug-
induced organic affective syndrome, alcohol dependence, generalized anxiety, 
homelessness, and PTSD. The applicant has been awarded treatment for service-
connected PTSD.

    e.  Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that 
there is insufficient information available to opine if the applicant had a mental health 
condition or experience that may mitigate his discharge, due to the insufficient 
information on the nature of misconduct, which resulted in his discharge. However, 
there is sufficient information that the applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD related 
to his experiences while on active service. The applicant’s contention that PTSD 
resulted in his misconduct is sufficient for consideration per the Liberal Consideration 
Policy.  

Kurta Questions
A.	Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate 
the discharge? Yes, the applicant contends he had PTSD which mitigates his 
misconduct.
B.	Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service?  Yes, the 
applicant reports experiencing PTSD while in active service, and the applicant 
was awarded treatment for service-connected PTSD.
C.	Does the condition experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
N/A, there is insufficient information available to opine if the applicant had a 
mental health condition or experience that may mitigate his discharge, due to 
the insufficient information on the nature of misconduct, which resulted in his 
discharge.

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. Based on other evidence, the applicant was charged with commission of an 
offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. After being charged, he 
presumably consulted with counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of AR 
635-200, Chapter 10.  Such discharges are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of 
trial by court-martial and carry an under other than honorable conditions 
characterization of service. The Board considered the medical records, any VA 
documents provided by the applicant and the review and conclusions of the advising 
official. The applicant contends he had PTSD which mitigates his misconduct. He 
reports experiencing PTSD while in active service, and the applicant was awarded 
treatment for service-connected PTSD. The Board agreed however, that there is 
insufficient information available to opine if the applicant had a mental health condition 
or experience that may mitigate his discharge, due to the insufficient information on the 
nature of misconduct, which resulted in his discharge. 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:

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.2.  

	 
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 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for 
correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. 
The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of 
administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. The applicant has 
the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. The 
ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. 
Additionally, applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The 
Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires.

4.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel. 

	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. A characterization of under 
honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation 
specifically allows such characterization.

5.  The Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRB) and 
Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR), on 3 September 
2014 [Hagel Memorandum], 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.

6.  The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) provided clarifying 
guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 August 2017 [Kurta 
Memorandum]. The memorandum directed them to give liberal consideration to 
Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole 
or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD, traumatic 
brain injury (TBI), sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Standards for review should 
rightly consider the unique nature of these cases and afford each Veteran a reasonable 
opportunity for relief even if the sexual assault or sexual harassment was unreported, or 
the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years later. Boards are to give 
liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for 
relief is based in whole or in part on those conditions or experiences. 

7.  The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) issued guidance to 
Service DRBs and Service 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.)	AR20220008910


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1