IN THE CASE OF: 
 
  BOARD DATE: 22 August 2023 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230000629 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: 
 
• an upgrade of his service characterization from under other than honorable conditions to honorable 

• a personal appearance before the Board via video/telephone 


 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552). 
 
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 improper guidance from his superiors led to his discharge under other than honorable conditions. He indicated the following issues/conditions related to his request: 
 
• post-traumatic stress disorder 

• other mental health 


 
3.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 August 1987. 
 
4.  His records contain three DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) showing the following changes in his duty status: 
 
• from present for duty to absent without leave (AWOL) – 3 March 1989 

• from AWOL to dropped from the rolls – 2 April 1989 

• from dropped from the rolls to attached/present for duty (surrendered to military authorities) – 15 April 1989  


5.  On 28 April 1989, court-martial charges were preferred against him. His DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows he was charged with violation of Article 86 (AWOL), Uniform Code of Military Justice, for absenting himself from his unit without authority on or about 3 March 1989 and remaining so absent until on or about 15 April 1989. 
 
6.  On 7 October 1988, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. He understood he could request discharge for the good of the service because charges had been preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. 
 
 a.  He acknowledged he made the request of his own free will and was not coerced by any person. He acknowledged his understanding that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him or of a lesser-included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. 
 
 b.  He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request were approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veteran's Administration (now known as the Department of Veterans Affairs), he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws, and he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. 
 
 c.  He elected to not submit statements in his own behalf. 
 
7.  On 2 May 1989, his company and battalion-level commanders recommended approval of his request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 10-3, with a characterization of his service as under other than honorable conditions. His immediate commander noted: "There does not appear to be any reasonable ground to believe that the individual is, or was, at the time of his misconduct, mentally defective, deranged or abnormal." 
 
8.  On 5 May 1989, the separation approval authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation  635-200 with characterization of his service as under other than honorable conditions. He further directed the applicant's reduction to the rank/grade of private/E-1 prior to separation. 
 
9.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged in the rank/grade of private/E-1 on 26 June 1989 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He completed 1 year, 8 months, and 19 days 
of net active service with lost time from 3 March 1989 to 14 April 1989. His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. His DD Form 214 does not list any individual awards or decorations. 
 
10.  His service records contain and he provided no evidence of diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder or other mental health conditions. 
 
11.  MEDICAL REVIEW: 
 
    a.  Background: The applicant is requesting an upgrade of his service characterization from under other than honorable conditions to honorable. The applicant asserts PTSD and other mental health mitigate his discharge.  
    b.  The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP). Below is a summary of information pertinent to this advisory:  
• Applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 August 1987.  

• On 28 April 1989, court-martial charges were preferred against him for absenting himself from his unit without authority (AWOL) on or about 3 March 1989 and remaining so absent until on or about 15 April 1989. 

• On 7 October 1988, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-marital. His request was approved.  

• The applicant was discharged on 26 June 1989 with an UOTHC characterization of service.  


c.  Review of Available Records Including Medical: 
The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor reviewed this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s completed DD Form 149, his ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), DD Form 214, as well as documents from his service record and separation. The VA electronic medical record and DoD health record were reviewed through Joint Longitudinal View (JLV), though no data/encounters were available. Lack of citation or discussion in this section should not be interpreted as lack of consideration.  
 
    d.  The applicant asserts that improper guidance from his superiors led to his discharge under other than honorable conditions. He indicated the PTSD and other mental health are related to his request for upgrade, however he did not provide any further details. There were no military medical or mental health records available for review in his electronic health record (EHR), which is consistent with the years he served. No medical or mental health documentation was in his service record, and the applicant did not provide corroborating evidence for his assertion of PTSD and other 
mental health. The applicant’s EHR was void of any medical records or encounters since his time in service, and the applicant receives no service-connected disability. However, given his characterization of service, the applicant would not typically be eligible for benefits and care through the VA. There is no indication the applicant has provided any additional medical or psychiatric records in support of his claimed diagnoses.  
    e.  Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral Health Advisor that there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant had a condition or experience at the time of service that mitigated his discharge. However, he contends mental health and PTSD are mitigating factors, 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 asserts PTSD and other mental health mitigate his discharge.  
    (2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Unknown. The applicant did not specify when he has experienced PTSD and/or other mental health concerns.    
 
    (3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The applicant asserts mitigation due to PTSD and other mental health. There is no evidence beyond self-report that the applicant was experiencing a mitigating condition on active service. There was no evidence provided that indicates he has ever been diagnosed with any mental health condition. The applicant did go AWOL, which can be a sequalae to some mental health conditions, but this is not sufficient to establish a history of a condition during active service. However, per Liberal Consideration guidance, his contention is sufficient for the board’s consideration. 
 
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 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. 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 charged with commission of an offense 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 carry an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. 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 insufficient evidence of post-service achievements, letters of reference/support, or evidence of a persuasive nature in support of a clemency determination. However, the Board also noted that the applicant’s AWOL (3 March to 15 April 1989) was relatively short and terminated by the applicant’s surrender, rather than apprehension, suggesting no intent by the applicant to remain AWOL. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that a general discharge is appropriate under published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests.  
 
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 a recommendation for partial relief. 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 26 June 1989 showing his character of service as Under Honorable Conditions, General. 
 
• Separation Authority: No Change 

• Separation Code: No Change 

• Reentry Code: No Change 

• Narrative Reason for Separation: No Change 


 
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 fully honorable 
 
 
  8/22/2023

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.  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.  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 considers individual applications that are properly brought before it. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record; it is not an investigative body. 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. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing (sometimes referred to as an evidentiary hearing or an administrative hearing) or request additional evidence or opinions. 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. 
 
3.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 
 
 a.  Chapter 10 provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for which included a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. The discharge request may be submitted after court-martial charges are preferred against the member, regardless of whether the charges are referred to a court-martial and regardless of the type of court-martial to which the charges may be referred. The request for discharge may be submitted at any stage in the processing of the charges until final action on the case by the court-martial convening authority. Commanders will ensure that a member is not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. The member will be given a reasonable time to consult with consulting counsel and to consider the wisdom of submitting such a request for discharge. After receiving counseling, the member may elect to submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. The member will sign a written request, certifying that he or she was counseled, understood his or her rights, may receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and understood the adverse nature of such a discharge and the possible consequences. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a member who was discharged for the good of the service. However, the discharge authority could direct an honorable or general discharge if such were merited by the member's overall record during the current enlistment. 
 
 b.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier'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. 
 
 c.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to a member whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 
 
 d.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct and for the good of the service. 
 
 e.  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. 
 
4.  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 Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, 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. 
 
5.  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. Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 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. This guidance does not mandate relief but provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. 
 
 a.  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. 
 
6.  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 ABCMR applicants (and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication. 
 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//