IN THE CASE OF: 
 
  BOARD DATE: 8 August 2023 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230000033 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his previous request to change his character of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable. 
 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
 
• DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), 21 December 2021 

• DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 

• Medical Evaluation, 4 August 2022 


 
FACTS: 
 
1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in: 
 
• Docket Number AR20150012401 on 23 August 2016 

• Docket Number AR20220002843 on 26 October 2022. 


 
2.  The applicant provides new argument or evidence not previously considered by the Board. The applicant states, his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows benefits of an honorable discharge, that has not been afforded to him. He has never been able to use Veteran Affairs (VA), or any other type of benefits. While in the military he suffered from anxiety and depression, and he still suffers today. His mental health contributed to his discharge. His post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental health is related to his request. 
 
3.  On 30 December 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He was assigned to Fort Jackson, SC for training. 
 
4.  Fort Bragg Form 2408 (Checklist for Screening Records), shows he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being AWOL from 12 February to 15 February 1973 and from 12 March to 26 March 1973; and for failure to repair on 30 April 1973. 
 
5.  On 31 May 1973, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant. The DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows the applicant was charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) from Company C, 17th Battalion, 4th Advanced Individual Training Brigade, Fort Jackson, SC, from on or about 6 May 1973 and did remain absent until on or about 26 July 1973. 
 
6.  On 3 August 1973, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for his contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the possible effects of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge if this request is approved, and of the procedures and rights available to him. Following this consultation, the applicant requested discharge under the provision of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. In his request, he acknowledged: 
 
 a.  He understood that submitting this request for discharge he acknowledge that he is guilty of the charges against him or of a lesser included offenses therein contained which also authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. 
 
 b.  He had been advised and understand the possible effects of an under other than honorable discharge. As a result of the issuance of such a discharge he will be deprived of many or all Army benefits that he may be ineligible for many, or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran under both state and federal law. 
 
 c.  He also understood that he may, up until the date the discharge authority approves his discharge, withdraw his acceptance of this discharge. 
 
7.  The applicant submitted a letter on his behalf that shows, he would like to depart from the Army because he cannot adjust to the Army ways of life. He further stated that if he cannot get out the Army, he would probably go AWOL again. 
 
8.  On or about 3 August 1973, the immediate and intermediate commanders recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge and the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  
 
9.  His DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 7 August 1973, shows he did not suffer from any defects or mental illness which would have contributed to his misconduct. He was found mentally fit for duty without limitations, responsible for his actions, and able to understand and participate in board proceedings. 
 
10.  On 22 August 1973, consistent with the chain of command recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's elimination from the service under the 
provision (UP) of AR 635-200, Chapter 10 and ordered the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  
 
11.  The applicant was discharged from active duty on 31 August 1973. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial, with the issuance of an under other than honorable certificate. His DD Form 214 shows: 
 
a.  He completed 4 months, and 11 days of net active service this period.  
 
 b.  He was awarded or authorized the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) and the National Defense Service Medal.  
 
 c.  His education and training completed consisted of Basic Combat Training, Military Justice and Benefits of Honorable Discharge. 
 
 d.  Lost time during this period under 10 U.S.C. 972: 30 December 1972 to 5 January 1973, 1 July to 25 July 1973, 12 February to 14 February 1973, 12 March to 25 March 1973, 27 March to 3 April 1973, and 6 May to 30 June 1973.  
 
 e.  He received separation program number "246" and a reentry code of "3." 
 
12.  On 26 October 2022, the Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The Board determined the applicant's records is absent behavioral health diagnoses and treatment during or after active-duty service; and no documentation was provided by the applicant supporting his contention. The applicant did not complete a full enlistment, had no wartime service, no meritorious personal awards and insufficient evidence of mitigating circumstances for the misconduct. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors or post-service honorable conduct that might have mitigated the discharge characterization that resulted from his misconduct. The Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization as reflected on his DD Form 214 is appropriate. 
 
13.  The applicant provides medical records that show his initial evaluation for PTSD, panic, and social phobia, dated 4 August 2022.  
 
a.  The physician noted, [applicant’s] mood worsened and there has been a persistent and concerning exacerbation in mood symptoms that may improve with medication changes. Applicant is experiencing continued intrusive memories of being in the Army; avoidance of memories/triggers associated with time in military; and a persistence negative emotional state. Applicant is socially isolated and avoidance of family members/friends. Panic attacks started two months ago and has not been properly treated.  
 
b.  History of present illness shows, applicant panic disorder started in 1974; he is a Vietnam Army veteran. His anxiety started in training. While living in Hickory, Dr. T____ M____ diagnosed applicant with panic disorder for heart racing, panic attacks and bad nerves. He was homeless for several years. His anxiety, panic died down somewhat. Applicant is currently experiencing nightmares, sleep illusions, and hearing voices. Applicant states training in the 1970’s was rough. A drill sergeant was killed by someone hitting him in the head with a steel pipe; and this stuck with him. They were treated bad. He was constantly on alert and scared for his life at times.  
 
14.  By regulation (AR 635-200), a member who has committed an offense for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 
 
15.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 
 
16.  MEDICAL REVIEW: 
 
    a.  The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) characterization of service to honorable.  He contends his misconduct was related to PTSD and 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 30 December 1972; 2) He was reported AWOL on multiple occasions; 3) He was separated on 31 August 1973 under provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.    
    c.  Military medical records reviewed included the DD Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation) date 7 August 1973, showing the applicant having no mental illness and cleared for administrative separation.  A review of JLV was void any medical treatment history and the applicant does not have a service-connected disability.  The applicant provided BH documentation from a civilian provider that showed the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD chronic, and Agoraphobia with Panic Disorder on 4 August 2022.  The PTSD diagnosis appears to be related to the applicant having witnessed a DS killed after being struck in the head with a pipe and reported mistreatment by DSs that had him fearing for his safety.  Additionally, the provider noted the applicant’s 
anxiety symptoms began during BCT and associated panic symptoms began in 1974, post-discharge. Documentation do not clearly outline what symptoms the applicant endorsed to meet diagnostic criteria for either disorder, however, given the provider is independently licensed to practice, this advisor accepts criteria were met.  The applicant had previously contended a history of depression and anxiety while in service, that contributed to his decision to go AWOL on multiple occasions, and in the current request noted PTSD as an additional mitigating factor.    
    d.  The applicant is seeking reconsideration of his previous request to upgrade his UOTHC discharge to honorable. He contends his misconduct was related to PTSD and Other Mental Health Issues.  A review of the records was void of any BH diagnosis or treatment history during service. Post service records showed the applicant diagnosed with PTSD chronic, and Agoraphobia with Panic Disorder, by a civilian provider.  The PTSD appears related to the applicant having witnessed a DS killed during BCT after being struck in the head with a pipe, and general mistreatment that resulted in the applicant fearing for his life.  Given the association between PTSD and avoidant behavior, to include going AWOL, there is a nexus between the applicant misconduct characterized by multiple instances of going AWOL and his diagnosis of PTSD, such that PTSD was a mitigating factor in the applicant’s misconduct.   
Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that the applicant had an experience or condition during his time in service that 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 diagnosed with PTSD chronic, and Agoraphobia with Panic Disorder, by a civilian provider 
    (2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes.  Symptoms onset reportedly began in BCT.  
    (3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes.  The applicant is seeking reconsideration of his previous request to upgrade his UOTHC discharge to honorable. He contends his misconduct was related to PTSD and Other Mental Health Issues.  A review of the records was void of any BH diagnosis or treatment history during service. Post service records showed the applicant diagnosed with PTSD chronic, and Agoraphobia with Panic Disorder, by a civilian provider.  The PTSD appears related to the applicant having witnessed a DS killed during BCT after being struck in the head with a pipe, and general mistreatment that resulted in the applicant fearing for his life.  Given the association between PTSD and avoidant behavior, to include going AWOL, there is a nexus between the applicant misconduct 
characterized by multiple instances of going AWOL and his diagnosis of PTSD, such that PTSD was a mitigating factor in the applicant’s misconduct.     
 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
 
After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was partially warranted. 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.  
 
 a.  The applicant was charged with commission of an offense (AWOL) punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. After being charged, he 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 result in an under other than honorable conditions character 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 Board concurred with the medical advisory opinion finding sufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors that contributed to the misconduct.  
 
 b.  However, the Board also noted that the applicant did not complete initial entry training and was not awarded an MOS. The governing regulation provides that a separation will be described as an entry-level separation, with service uncharacterized, if the separation action is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status. As such, the Board agreed that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show the applicant’s character of service as “uncharacterized.” An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier’s military service. It merely means the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise.   
  
BOARD VOTE: 
 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
 
: : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 
 
xx: xx: xx: GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
 
: : : DENY APPLICATION 
 
 
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 
 
1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant partial amendment of the ABCMR's decisions in Dockets Number AR20150012401 on 23 August 2016 and Docket Number AR20220002843 on 26 October 2022. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing him a DD Form 214 for the period ending 31 August 1973 showing his character of service as Uncharacterized. 
 
2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading the characterization of his discharge to honorable 
 
  8/8/2023

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.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment. When a Soldier is to be discharged under other than honorable conditions, the separation authority will direct an immediate reduction to the lowest enlisted grade per Army Regulation 600–8–19.   
 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.   
 
2.  On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors, when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions, 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. 
 
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.  On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial.  However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice.  
 
 a.  This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment.  
 
 b.  Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. 
 
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//