IN THE CASE OF:  
 
  BOARD DATE: 15 August 2023 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230000450 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge. 
 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
 
• DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) 

• DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 2 January 1992 

• Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Benefits Summary, 27 September 2022 


 
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 got into an altercation with his wife when he returned from deployment. At the time, he was not diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and did not know he needed mental health treatment. 
 
3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 April 1986. He reenlisted in the Regular Army on 31 August 1988. 
 
4.  He served in Southwest Asia from 13 September 1990 through 24 April 1991. 
 
5.  The applicant's record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 2 January 1992 in the rank/grade of specialist/E-4, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense. His character of service was under honorable conditions (general). He was credited with 
5 years, 8 months, and 15 days of net active service this period. He was authorized or awarded the following: 
 
• Army Service Ribbon 

• Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) 

• Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar 

• Army Achievement Medal 

• Army Good Conduct Medal 

• Driver and Mechanic Badge 

• Southwest Asia Service Medal with two bronze service stars 


 
6.  The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG)on 15 March 2007. A DA Form 199 (Informal Physical Evaluation Board [PEB] Proceedings), dated 22 July 2014, shows a PEB determined the applicant was physically unfit for continued service and recommended a disability rating of 70 percent (%) for PTSD with unspecified depressive disorder and that his disposition be permanent disability retirement. The PEB further determined the applicant’s disability disposition was not based upon a disease or injury incurred in the line of duty in combat. 
 
7.  The applicant was honorably discharged from the ARNG and assigned to the Retired Reserve on 24 October 2014 by reason of permanent disability. His National Guard Bureau (NGB) 22 (NGB Report of Separation and Record of Service), shows he was credited with 7 years, 7 months, and 10 days of net service this period. 
 
8.  The applicant provides a benefits summary from the VA, dated 27 September 2022, which shows the recipient is receiving compensation for a 100% disability rating. However, the name of the recipient is not that of the applicant. 
 
9.  Regulatory guidance provides when an individual is discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. Characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be inappropriate. 
 
10.  The Board should consider the applicant's overall record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 
  
11.  MEDICAL REVIEW: 
 
    a.  The applicant is applying to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for an upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge. He contends he was experiencing 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 April 1986; 2) The applicant's record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 2 January 1992 in the rank/grade of specialist/E-4, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense. His character of service was under honorable conditions (general). 
    c.  The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s military service and medical records. The VA’s Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) was also examined.  
    d.  The applicant asserts he was experiencing PTSD after returning from his first deployment to Southwest Asia from 1990-1991. He also stated he was involved in an altercation with his wife, but there were no additional details of the nature of events which resulted in his separation. There is evidence the applicant was seen while in active service for an adjustment disorder for one session. A review of JLV provided sufficient evidence the applicant has been diagnosed and treated for PTSD, and he has been awarded service-connected disability for PTSD (70%).   
    e.  Based on the available information, there is insufficient information available to provide a medical opinion, if the applicant had condition or experience that mitigated his misconduct due to the absence of his separation packet. At this time, there is sufficient evidence the applicant has been diagnosed with service-connected PTSD. However, there is insufficient information on the nature of the events, which resulted in his discharge. It is noted, domestic violence is not a natural sequel of PTSD. In addition, PTSD does not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. 
Kurta Questions 
    (1)  Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A, at this time, there is sufficient evidence the applicant has been diagnosed with service-connected PTSD. However, there is insufficient information on the nature of the events that resulted in his discharge, which is necessary to provide a medical opinion. It is noted, domestic violence is not a natural sequel of PTSD. In 
addition, PTSD does not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. 
    (2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service?  N/A 
    (3)  Does the condition experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
 
After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not 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’s separation packet is not available for review. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged due to misconduct – commission of a serious offense. His character of service was under honorable conditions (general). The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.  
 
 b.  The Board reviewed and agreed with the medical advisory opinion finding insufficient information on the nature of the events, which resulted in his discharge. It is noted, domestic violence is not a natural sequel of PTSD. In addition, PTSD does not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. Also, the applicant provided insufficient evidence of post-service achievements, letters of reference/support, or evidence of a persuasive nature 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 
 
xx: xx: xx: DENY APPLICATION 
 
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 
 
Except for the correction addressed in Administrative Note(s) below, the Board found the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 
  8/15/2023

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. 
 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): 
 
A review of the applicant's record shows his DD Form 214, for the period ending  
2 January 1992 is missing an important entry that affects his eligibility for post-service benefits. As a result, amend the DD Form 214 by adding the following entry in item 18 (Remarks), CONTINUOUS HONORABLE SERVICE FROM 19860418 UNTIL 19880830. 
 
 
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.  Section 1556 of Title 10, U.S. 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. 
 
3.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records), prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. It states the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. 
 
4.  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.  Chapter 14 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absences without leave. Action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) was normally considered appropriate. However, the separation authority could direct a general discharge if such was merited by the Soldier's overall record. 
 
5.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations), 15 August 1979, in effect at the time did not provide for an additional entry for continuous honorable active service, when a Soldier who previously reenlisted without being issued a DD Form 214 was 
discharged with any characterization of service except honorable. However, an interim change, published on 2 October 1989 does provide for such an entry. 
 
6.  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 Discharge Review Boards (DRB) and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR) when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to:  mental health conditions, including PTSD; traumatic brain injury; 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.  On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military DRBs and 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, 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//