ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 August 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230000506 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his previous request for: a. An upgrade to his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 24 January 1991, due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and mental health issue, to show in: • Item 24 (Character of Service): Honorable • Item 26 (Separation Code): something more favorable • Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation): something more favorable b. A personal appearance before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: • DD Forms 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) • DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) • Personal Statement • Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim • DD Forms 214 • Multiple character reference letters • MS Department of Public Safety Driver Records Bureau • Statement in Support of Claim from the VA • Medical Records 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 AR20190006033 on 9 September 2019. 2. The applicant states during his military service, he did not receive access to specialized care and treatment for PTSD, mental health issues, and his alcoholism. His current separation status and character of service bars him from receiving much needed care at the VA. At the time of his discharge, he did not exhibit willful misconduct; however, his mental health status at the time met the VA’s definition of insanity. He was mentally disturbed at the time of his discharge, showing signs of mental health disturbances and strain. He also exhibited signs of undiagnosed PTSD. He feels as though his UOTHC discharge was not justified due to his diagnosis of PTSD. He did not have any problems until after his deployment, which is when he developed PTSD. He believes that his PTSD was the thing that led to his discharge. 3. The applicant provides the following documentation: a. A personal statement, which states: (1) “I served on active duty in the United States Army from 13 September 1982 to 25 January 1983…My mental health at the time met the VA's definition of ‘insanity.’ I had an undiagnosed mental health problem [and] at that time, it was causing me to act very differently than I normally would. I was experiencing the first symptoms of PTSD, and it was really affecting my behavior. (2) The Veteran served on active duty from 13 September 1983 to 24 January 1991. His service personnel records show that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). While on duty, the Veteran was disciplined for drinking excessively and speaking of killing himself; a prior diagnosis of alcohol abuse and outpatient treatment was not addressed prior to active duty enlistment. The Veteran's exhibited a pattern of self-harm to himself and other due to of alcohol intoxication, behavioral changes, and several physical fights with fellow serviceman. (3) His actions did not constitute willful and persistent misconduct. Specifically, the appellant's service personnel records contain no negative evaluations until active duty discharge. It should be noted that while in service, he received an Army Service Ribbon. As it stands now, the Veteran's current separation status leaves that the character of the Veteran's discharge from service is a bar to the receipt of VA benefits, as the ‘other than honorable conditions’ discharge in January 1991 was made without providing access to care and treatment. (4) The Veteran acknowledges the following misconduct while on duty: drunkenness, late for duty, no show for duty, and disobeying order and duties. While in service, officials did not recognize or acknowledge this behavior and ruled that it was not recognized or warranted any counseling, mental or psychological assessment and/or diagnosis by his superiors. He was told by superior officers to tough it out and to suck it up and ‘be a man’. This off handedness and lack of empathy led to the Veteran self-medicating with excessive alcohol and reckless behavior. This in-service trauma led to behavior dysfunction, which led to disciplinary proceedings, and ultimately led to "bad paper" or dishonorable discharge. (5) At the time of separation, the Veteran did not receive medical separation board review. The Veteran was discharged and separated from military service at the convenience of government. After numerous run-ins with law enforcement and behavioral prevention programs, the Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD and alcohol abuse after more than 20 years since leaving the military. (6) Since the Veteran's exit from the military, he has exhibited history of alcohol abuse, public drunkenness, driving under the influence (DUI), leaving the scene, speeding, indecent exposure, suspended driver’s license; 10 violations in surrounding cities [from] 1 April 2020 – 23 February 2022. (7) After completing basic training, the Veteran began immediately exhibiting grossly and inappropriate behavior towards structure and had a high attraction to risky behaviors. These mitigating factors, coupled with the Veteran's undiagnosed mental health disease, were negative factors that led to the downfall of his quality of service, and impacted his ability to serve, but also impacted his job projects moving forward and led to his discharge without a medical examination. (8) The Veteran has a current and recent diagnosis of PTSD, mental health disease, depression, and stroke (paralyzed on right side (arm and leg immobile). At the time of his discharge, the Veteran suffered stigma related to seeking rehabilitative self-care. The military did not provide access to specialized care and treatment. After an UOTHC discharge, he was left confused and hurt, as his lifelong dream was to serve his county in the military. After discharge, the Veteran did not immediately seek help for PTSD and alcohol rehabilitation issues. As a result, he was involved in numerous brushes with death, life altering and infractions that mushroomed from physical or mental wounds, such as self-medicating with drugs or alcohol after combat, sexual assault or other trauma. (9) The Veteran is relying on the board to review and adhere to HB 5592 which expands the general definition of "veteran" under state law to include those released with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge based on specified qualifying conditions and applies this new definition across veterans benefit programs. In doing so, it extends state-based benefits to certain veterans who are currently ineligible”. b. Character references: (1) Spouse: She has been married since 23 December 1994, and starting seeing issues after a week of marriage with chronic drinking. Early in their marriage, the applicant confided in me that he started to drink excessively was when he was in the military and was then married to his first wife. Their relationship was rocky due to the applicant’s obligations in the military and his dependence on alcohol. Due to his substance abuse, he had some problems on keeping a job. He has been fired from numerous steady and gainful places of employment. During his periods of sobriety, he has exemplified incredible potential and ambition. He was always successful in securing the positions he sought, but his addiction would not allow him to keep the job for a long period of time. There was definitely a marked difference in his behavior when he was not drinking. He was happy, outgoing, loving and caring. After several suggestions, and even though he currently has an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge rating, we decided to visit the local VA hospital. After several visits, he was finally diagnosed with PTSD, mental health illness, and alcohol dependency. We credit the recent and ongoing services of our local VA facility for providing the diagnosis. (2) Brother: When the applicant was in high school in the 80s, he expressed his love for his county and informed our parents that he wanted to enlist in the military. He enrolled in Jr. ROTC and became an early leader among his peers. Upon graduation, he signed up for the US Army. He was excited to start his military career! Nobody could match that grin as he waved goodbye to us. As time passed, my mother noticed that he limited his family talks and calls home. He rarely visited and when he did, he was always under the influence of alcohol. We are thankful for his loving wife, and current visits to the local VA where he is receiving help with his recent diagnosis of PTSD, mental health issues and alcohol abuse. (3) Pastor: He has observed, in his capacity as pastor, at New Hope Missionary Baptist Church, Blaine, MS that the applicant has been an active member of our church, participating in outreach ministry, Sunday school, bible class, and he is also in training to become a deacon of the church. He attends services weekly. He has been an excellent role model for those seeking a more active and rewarding relationship with God. He has been pleased to witness the applicant’s spiritual growth over time, and he looks forward to seeing it blossom further. He respects him as a person of good moral character, and as a bright spot in our congregation. The strides he has made are nothing short of amazing. The applicant has worked so hard to show that he has come out ahead in this struggle and has fought off having a relapse. (4) Friend: She has known the applicant over 20 years and has known him to be a habitual drinker, it has caused him several times to almost lose his home and his family, he has many times tried to stop the drinking, even tried professional help to no avail. She knows for now he's in a better place then he's been in for a long time, but for him it's always been a one day at a time kind of success. She is praying for him to overcome his challenges. (5) He has known the applicant for more than 20 years, and he has seen the struggles he has been through, but through it all, he has managed to maintain a positive outlook on life. The applicant is a pillar in his community, he is always willing to lend a hand when necessary. He is and has been a mentor to many young and elderly people along the way. As in life, applicant is not a perfect man, but he has learned from his mistakes and down falls. The applicant that he knows today and have known for the past 20 plus years is a good man and he will keep him on my Team until one of us leaves this world. The military has a responsibility to everyone that joined to return them to as close to a whole person as when they joined. That did not happen with the applicant, the military left him to manage on his own, he picked up the pieces of his life, put them back together and became the proud man he is today. (6) He has known the applicant for over 20 years. He first met him when he first started to date his wife while he was dating one of his wife's sisters, who he later married and built their first house together. Because we lived in different states and he was currently on active duty, we did not see much of each other except for summers when we would go visit. During the time he has really gotten to know the applicant, he has been a hard worker, a great friend, and takes care of his family. He is a man of perfection, meaning, he always seeks to do his best at whatever is set before him. The applicant informed me that he was trying to upgrade his General Discharge from the United States Army to an Honorable Discharge. I am not aware of al l the details behind this discharge. In our younger years, we all have make mistakes that we regret. He sincerely hopes that the Board would consider the applicant for an upgraded discharge from a general to an honorable. c. Department of Public Safety, Driver Records Bureau, State of Mississippi shows he had the following arrests and convictions: • Driving with a suspended license on 22 March 2002 • Leaving the scene of an accident on 22 March 2002 • Driving with a suspended license on 2 August 2002 • Careless driving on 21 March 2012 • DUI (1st offense) on 21 March 2012 • Public Drunkenness on 21 December 2019 d. Medical documents which will be reviewed and discussed by the Behavior Health Staff at the Army Review Boards Agency regarding his claim of PTSD and mental health issues. 4. The applicant’s service record provides the following documentation: a. On 22 July 1988, he enlisted in the Regular Army. b. He accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for the following issues: • 16 March 1989: for being drunk on duty, on or about 3 February 1989 • 20 November 1990: for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, on or about 5 November 1990 c. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation conducted on 14 November 1990 shows his behavior was normal, he was fully alert, fully oriented, his mood was unremarkable, thinking process clear, and thought content normal. The doctor noted and he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in his separation processing and was mentally responsible for his actions. Additionally, he noted that the applicant had no psychiatric disease or defect d. A DD Form 3975 (Military Police Report), dated 8 November 1990, reflects he was reported as absent without leave (AWOL) on or about 6 November 1990. He surrendered to military authorities on or about 7 November 1990. e. The applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant on 17 December 1990 of his intent to initiate separation actions against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct – pattern of misconduct. His commander cited, as the specific reason for the proposed separation, his failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty, his NJP for being drunk on duty, and his period of AWOL service. f. The applicant consulted with counsel on 18 December 1990 and was advised of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him and of the rights available to him. He acknowledged his understanding and elected not to provide a statement in his own behalf. g. The applicant's immediate commander formally recommended his separation from service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, by reason of misconduct. The separation authority approved the recommended action on 10 January 1991 and directed the issuance of a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate). h. On 24 January 1991, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b (Pattern of Misconduct). His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he completed 2 years, 2 months, and 24 days of active service. reflects in: • Item 24: “Under Honorable Conditions (General) • Item 26: “JKM” • Item 28: “Misconduct – Pattern of Misconduct 5. In a prior ABCMR Docket Number AR20190006033 shows the applicant submitted a request for an upgrade to his discharge. The Board denied his request on 9 September 2019. 6. The Board should consider the applicant's statement in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 7. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting reconsideration of his previous request for changes to his DD214. Specifically, he is requesting for an upgrade to his character of service, separation code, and narrative reason for separation. He contends mental health conditions, including PTSD were mitigating factors in 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 22 July 1988; 2) The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) on 16 March 1989 for being drunk on duty and on 20 November 1990, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. He was also found AWOL from 6-7 November 1990; 3) The applicant was discharged on 24 January 1991, Chapter 14-12b (Pattern of Misconduct). His separation code was JKM, and his character of service was under honorable conditions (general); 4) In a prior ABCMR Docket Number AR20190006033 shows the applicant submitted a request for an upgrade to his discharge. His case was denied. c. The ARBA Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s military service records. The VA’s Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) and VA documents submitted by the applicant were also examined. d. The applicant asserts he was experiencing mental health conditions including PTSD while on active service, but he did not report his symptoms due to stigma associated attending behavioral health treatment. The applicant described experiencing alcoholism while on active service. He also stated he was exhibiting “signs of undiagnosed PTSD” and “speaking of killing himself.” There is insufficient evidence the applicant reported behavioral health symptoms while on active service. He was seen for a Mental Status Evaluation on 14 November 1990 as part of his separation proceedings. The applicant seen by a psychiatrist, and he was not diagnosed with a mental health condition. The applicant was cleared to participate in his separation processing and was found mentally responsible for his actions. A review of JLV provided evidence the applicant has been diagnosed depression as a result of a stroke he experienced in 2014. The applicant has submitted a claim with the VA for PTSD, but there is insufficient evidence at this time that he has been diagnosed with PTSD or experienced a potentially traumatic event during his military service. The applicant also has not been diagnosed with a service-connected mental health condition including PTSD. e. Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant had condition or experience that mitigated his misconduct. Kurta Questions (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes, the applicant contends he was experiencing mental health conditions including PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes, the applicant contends he was experiencing mental health conditions including PTSD while on active service. (3) Does the condition experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No, there is insufficient evidence beyond self-report the applicant was experiencing any mental health condition other than alcoholism while on active service. He was evaluated by an appropriate behavioral health provider while on active service and not diagnosed with psychiatric condition. He was found mentally responsible for his actions, and he was cleared to participate in his separation proceedings. There was sufficient evidence the applicant has been diagnosed with depression unrelated to his military service, and there is insufficient evidence he has been formally diagnosed with PTSD related to his military service. In addition, he has not been diagnosed with a service-connected mental health condition. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board determined the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 2. 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 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 was discharged from active duty due to a pattern of misconduct (failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty, being drunk on duty, AWOL) with a general discharge. The Board reviewed and was persuaded by the medical advisory opinion finding insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors to overcome the misconduct. The applicant provided multiple character reference letters in support of a clemency determination; however, the Board determined those letters do not outweigh his pattern of misconduct, that he has already received a general discharge (vice a under other than honorable conditions discharge), and that he did not complete his term of service due to his own misconduct. 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. b. The applicant's narrative reason for separation was assigned based on the fact that he was separated under the provisions of chapter 14 of AR 635-200 for misconduct-a pattern of misconduct. Absent the misconduct, there was no fundamental reason to process him for separation. The underlying reason for his discharge was his misconduct. The only valid narrative reason for separation permitted under that paragraph is "misconduct-pattern of misconduct" and the appropriate separation code associated with this discharge is "JKM" which had a corresponding RE-3 code. 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 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20190006033, dated 9 September 2019. 8/29/2023 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 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. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. Paragraph 2-11 states applicants do not have a right to a formal hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 3-7a provides that 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 of this regulation establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absences without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. 3. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) defines the separation codes used on the DD Form 214. SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations which identify reasons for and types of separation from active duty. At the time of his separation, SPD code “JKM” was the appropriate SPD code for Soldiers separated for a pattern of misconduct. By regulation, the narrative reason for separation is based on the separation authority and SPD. In this case, the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of chapter 14-12b (Misconduct). The associated SPD is "JKM" and the accompanying narrative reason is (Misconduct – Pattern). 4. PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and provides standard criteria and common language for the classification of mental disorders. In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM nosologic classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. From a historical perspective, the significant change ushered in by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the etiological agent was outside the individual (i.e., a traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual weakness (i.e., a traumatic neurosis). The key to understanding the scientific basis and clinical expression of PTSD is the concept of "trauma." 5. PTSD is unique among psychiatric diagnoses because of the great importance placed upon the etiological agent, the traumatic stressor. In fact, one cannot make a PTSD diagnosis unless the patient has actually met the "stressor criterion," which means that he or she has been exposed to an event that is considered traumatic. Clinical experience with the PTSD diagnosis has shown, however, that there are individual differences regarding the capacity to cope with catastrophic stress. Therefore, while most people exposed to traumatic events do not develop PTSD, others go on to develop the full-blown syndrome. Such observations have prompted the recognition that trauma, like pain, is not an external phenomenon that can be completely objectified. Like pain, the traumatic experience is filtered through cognitive and emotional processes before it can be appraised as an extreme threat. Because of individual differences in this appraisal process, different people appear to have different trauma thresholds, some more protected from and some more vulnerable to developing clinical symptoms after exposure to extremely stressful situations. 6. The fifth edition of the DSM was released in May 2013. This revision includes changes to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and acute stress disorder. The PTSD diagnostic criteria were revised to take into account things that have been learned from scientific research and clinical experience. The revised diagnostic criteria for PTSD include a history of exposure to a traumatic event that meets specific stipulations and symptoms from each of four symptom clusters: intrusion, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and alterations in arousal and reactivity. The sixth criterion concerns duration of symptoms, the seventh criterion assesses functioning, and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition. 7. As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis, and treatment of PTSD, the Department of Defense (DOD) acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge. It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldiers' misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge. Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from a temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time. 8 On 3 September 2014 in view of the foregoing information, 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 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 applicants' service. 9. BCM/NRs are not courts, nor are they investigative agencies. Therefore, the determinations will be based upon a thorough review of the available military records and the evidence provided by each applicant on a case-by-case basis. When determining if PTSD was the causative factor for an applicant's misconduct and whether an upgrade is warranted, the following factors must be carefully considered: • Is it reasonable to determine that PTSD or PTSD-related conditions existed at the time of discharge? • Does the applicant's record contain documentation of the occurrence of a traumatic event during the period of service? • Does the applicant's military record contain documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms? • Did the applicant provide documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms rendered by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider? • Was the applicant's condition determined to have existed prior to military service? • Was the applicant's condition determined to be incurred during or aggravated by military service? • Do mitigating factors exist in the applicant's case? • Did the applicant have a history of misconduct prior to the occurrence of the traumatic event? • Was the applicant's misconduct premeditated? • How serious was the misconduct? 10. Although DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged UOTHC may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time. Conditions documented in the records that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the UOTHC characterization of service. BCM/NRs will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of UOTHC. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. BCM/NRs will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 11. 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, traumatic brain injury (TBI), sexual assault, or sexual harassment. 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. 12. 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 regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence and BCMRs 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 discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. The 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, an injustice, or clemency grounds, BCMRs shall consider the twelve stated principles in the guidance as well as eighteen individual factors related to an applicant. These factors include the severity of the misconduct and the length of time since the misconduct. 13. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1556 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//