IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 11 August 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230000493


APPLICANT REQUESTS: upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) 
discharge to honorable. 

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

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) (duplicate)
*	Self-Authored Statement

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.  Something happened to him when he was in basic training at Fort Dix, NJ. On 
more than a few occasions, when he was coming out of the shower walking through the 
latrine two guys grabbed his buttocks. He told them to get away from him. The next time 
one guy was behind him, and one guy was in front of him and grabbed his private part. 
He pushed him real hard into the sink. A few days later he noticed a naked picture of 
himself on the enclosed locked bulletin board. He did not know who put it there. The 
people he asked did not know who put it there. The rest of his time in the Army was very 
uncomfortable because of this. He was embarrassed and angry. Ever since then he got 
into a lot of fist fights in basic training and the rest of his time in the Army.

     b.  He spoke to someone at the Department of Veterans Affairs about what 
happened to him and how it changed him, he feels it ruined his Army career. He did not 
speak about what happened to him all these years and he is still embarrassed for 
anybody to know. It dawned on him that he was getting into fist fights the rest of his 
Army career because of what happened. This might have contributed to his early 
release from the Army. Just writing this gives him a lot of anxiety and anger.

3.  On his DD Form 149, the applicant notes post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is 
related to his request, as a contributing and mitigating factor in the circumstances that 
resulted in his separation.

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 May 1980 for 3 years. He served in 
military occupational specialty 63B (Lightweight Vehicle and Power Generation 
Mechanic).

5.  The applicant was formally counseled on multiple occasions between 22 February 
1980 and 1 June 1980 for: 

*	failing to return to his appointed place duty on or about 19 February 1982
*	late for duty and unclean shower
*	failure to make company formation
*	missing three days of extra duty
*	failure to make mandatory formation
*	disrespect to a noncommissioned officer (NCO)
*	failure to repair (missing all day without contacting anyone)

6.  A Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 2 March 1982, shows the applicant 
stated, "The Army has ruined my life." He stated over the past year he has noticed a 
change in his personality and attitude. He s mean and obnoxious, provokes others to 
fight him and it s all the Army s fault for his problems. He denied having any problems in 
school. He states anyone that irritates him he hates them. His parents threw him out of 
the house because he has become so mean. He states he wants out of the Army before 
he hurts someone and gets into trouble. There was no evidence of thought disorder, his 
mood and affect were appropriate. The applicant denied any suicide ideations but 
admitted to homicidal thoughts and having difficulty sleeping. He denies any weight loss 
or hallucinations. He admits to having weird dreams also. The Impression was deferred; 
after interpretation a recommendation would be made. 

7.  A Report of Psychiatric/Psychological Evaluation, dated 18 March 1982, shows the 
applicant was considered unsuitable for continue military service. He demonstrated poor 
judgement and an excessively demanding and negative attitude. He appeared to have a 
low frustration tolerance and poor impulse control. It was felt that he would continue to 
behave in an irresponsible manner and serve as a detriment to morale in the unit. The 
evaluating psychologist recommended his elimination from service. He was 
psychiatrically cleared for any action deemed appropriate by command.

8.  The applicant was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on 7 April 1982 until he 
was present for duty on 19 April 1982.

9.  The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (UCMJ) on:

*	29 April 1982, for failing to go at the time prescribe dot his appointed place of 
duty on or about 27 February 1982; his punishment consisted of reduction to 
private/E-2, forfeiture of $150.00 pay for two months, and extra duty
*	2 May 1982, for AWOL from on or about 7 April 1982 until on or about 19 April 
1982; his punishment consisted of extra duty, forfeiture of $75.00 pay and 
reduction to private/E-1

10.  The applicant underwent another mental status evaluation on 24 May 1982. The 
Report of Mental Status Evaluation shows he had the mental capacity to understand 
and participate in the proceedings, was mentally responsible, and met retention 
standards.

11.  A Report of Medical Examination, dated 24 May 1982, notes no significant mental 
illness. He was qualified for separation.

12.  The applicant was formally counseled on 2 June 1982 by his first sergeant for not 
returning to his extra duty after leaving to change out of his civilian attire.

13.  The applicant's immediate commander notified him on 3 June 1982, that he was 
initiating actions to separate him from service under the provisions of Army Regulation 
(AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), Paragraph 5-31, of the 
Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP), with an under honorable conditions (general) 
discharge. As the specific reasons for the proposed action, his commander noted the 
applicant s extreme negative and hostile attitude toward the Army and his duty 
performance had been totally unsatisfactory.

14.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification on 3 June 1982. 
Having been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation and its 
effect and the rights available to him. He understood he may expect to encounter 
substantial prejudice in civilian life. He voluntarily consented to the separation and 
elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

15.  The applicant's commander formally recommended the applicant's separation from 
service under the provisions of AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-31, EDP, with issuance of an 
under honorable condition, general discharge. His chain of command concurred, and 
that the applicant should not be considered for service in any reserve component as he 
is not suitable for further military service in any capacity.

16.  On 7 June 1982, the applicant s immediate commander formally recommended his 
separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-31, of the EDP.
17.  The approval authority approved the recommended discharge on 14 June 1982 and 
that the applicant should not be considered for service in any reserve component as he 
is not suitable for further military service in any capacity.

18.  The applicant was discharged on 16 June 1982. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions 
of AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-31, by reason of for failure to maintain acceptable 
standards for retention (EDP). His characterization of service was under honorable 
conditions (general). He completed 2 years and 8 days of net active service. He lost 
time from 7 April 1982 to 18 April 1982.

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

20.  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 27 May 1980; 2) As outlined in the ROP, the 
applicant was counseled on multiple occasions for various infractions between 22 
February 1980 and 1 June 1980; 3) The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment 
under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 29 April 1982 for 
failing to go to his prescribed place of duty on or about 27 February 1982, and he 
accepted NJP on 2 May 1982 for being AWOL from on or about 7 April 1982 to on or 
about 19 April 1982; 4) The applicant's immediate commander notified him on 3 June 
1982, that he was initiating actions to separate him from service under the provisions of 
Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), Paragraph 
5-31, of the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP); 5) The applicant was discharged on 
16 June 1982. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 
shows he was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-31, by 
reason of for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP).
    c.  The VA electronic medical record (JLV), ROP, and casefiles were reviewed.  The 
military electronic medical record (AHLTA) was not reviewed as it was not in use during 
the applicant s time in service. Included in the applicant s casefiles was a Report of 
Psychiatric/Psychological Evaluation, dated 18 March 1982, that showed the applicant 
was deemed unsuitable for continued military service due to low frustration tolerance, 
poor judgement, and an excessively demanding and negative attitude.  The provider 
opined that the applicant would likely continue to behave irresponsibly and serve as a 
detriment to moral in the unit. He was psychiatrically cleared for separation. The 
applicant underwent a subsequent Mental Status Evaluation on 24 May 1982, whereby 
it was determined he had the mental capacity to participate in proceedings, was 
mentally responsible, and met retention standards. Also included in the files was a 
Report of Medical Examination, dated 24 May 1982 that showed the applicant medically 
cleared for separation. No other military BH records were provided for review. A review 
of JLV was void of any treatment history for the applicant and he does not have a 
service-connected disability.  No civilian BH records were provided for review.
    d.  The applicant is requesting upgrade of his under honorable conditions, general, 
discharge to honorable.  He contends his misconduct was related to PTSD and appears 
to imply it secondary to MST.  A review of the records was void of any BH diagnosis or 
treatment history for the applicant during or after service and he provided no 
documentation supporting his contention of PTSD.  In absence of documentation 
supporting his assertion of PTSD, there is insufficient evidence his misconduct was 
related to or mitigated by PTSD, and insufficient evidence to support an upgrade of his 
current discharge characterization.  
    e.  Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that 
there is insufficient evidence that the applicant had an experience or condition during 
his time in service that mitigated his misconduct.  However, he contends his misconduct 
was associated with PTSD, and per Liberal Consideration guidance his contention is 
sufficient to warrant the Board s consideration.   
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 contends his misconduct was 
related to PTSD
    (2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes.   
    (3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No.  
The applicant is requesting upgrade of his under honorable conditions, general, 
discharge to honorable.  He contends his misconduct was related to PTSD and appears 
to imply it secondary to MST.  A review of the records was void of any BH diagnosis or 
treatment history for the applicant during or after service and he provided no 
documentation supporting his contention of PTSD.  In absence of documentation 
supporting his assertion of PTSD, there is insufficient evidence his misconduct was 
related to or mitigated by PTSD, and insufficient evidence to support an upgrade of his 
current discharge characterization.




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 request, supporting documents, evidence in the records and 
published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board 
considered the frequency and nature of the misconduct and the reason for separation.  
The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors to overcome the 
misconduct and weigh in favor of a clemency determination. Based on a preponderance 
of evidence available for review, 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:

The Board determined 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 (USC), 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, U.S. Code, Section 1556, provides the Secretary of the Army shall ensure 
that an applicant seeking corrective action by 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.  AR 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.  Paragraph 5-31 provided for the discharge of enlisted personnel who had 
completed at least six months but less than 36 months of active duty and who had 
demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of 
enlisted personnel in the Army because of the existence of one or more of the following 
conditions: poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt 
socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential. No individual 
would be discharged under this program unless the individual voluntarily consented to 
the proposed discharge. Individuals discharged under this provision of the regulation 
were issued either a general or honorable discharge.

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

5.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided clarifying 
guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 August 2017. 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, 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. The guidance further describes evidence sources 
and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in 
evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge. 

6.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to 
Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 July 2018, 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)	AR20230000493


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1