IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 October 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230001885 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * Reconsideration of his previous request to upgrade his under other than honorable conditions discharge * As new requests, the applicant asks the Board to correct his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) by amending item 26 (Separation Code (SPD)) to state "KLM" or "JDM," and by revising item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) to show "Convenience of the Government" APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * Reconsideration request * Photo of Plaque for 10-years' service * Applicant's commercial driver license * Certificate of Ordination * Certificate of License 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 AR20210005202, on 15 October 2021. 2. The applicant states he is providing a number of reasons why he believes the Board should upgrade his character of service, and if the Board disagrees, he asks for an explanation as to why. a. The applicant argues that the presumption of regularity might normally permit the Board to assume the Army acted correctly, but he feels it does not apply in his case, and he believes his evidence and arguments will overcome that presumption. b. The applicant contends the punishments he received were too severe by current standards, and that today's Army would not have given him the type of discharge he received. This is because his average conduct and efficiency ratings were good, his record of nonjudicial punishments (NJP) were for minor offenses, and his absences without leave (AWOL) were minor/isolated in nature. c. The applicant asserts he had impairments that negatively affected the quality of his service; specifically, he was young and immature; he had marital and family issues, as well as psychiatric problems; and he had to endure constant hazing, harassment, and racial discrimination. d. The applicant maintains he tried his best to serve, noting he helped his unit achieve "FMC" and unit awards, but ultimately, he was unsuccessful, due to the hostile and uncaring environment he faced. An example of his command's poor treatment was when he tried to apply for a hardship discharge; they unfairly told him to "forget it." The command then abused its authority by giving him an adverse discharge. e. The applicant points out that, since his discharge, he has been a good citizen, and he submits a photo of a plaque recognizing him for 10 years of service as a professional trucker; he also offers two certificates reflecting his ordination as a minister and his license to preach. Further, he has been involved in many local events, and he has been giving back to his community. f. First Sergeant (1SG) (Retired (R)) interviewed the applicant, and he provided the following information: (1) The applicant took both basic combat training (BCT) and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Dix, NJ; right after graduating from BCT, he went straight to truck driving AIT, and the only break he got was for a week after finishing training. He then went to Fort Leonard Wood, MO for his first duty assignment. (2) The applicant served at Fort Leonard Wood for over a year; he asked for leave several times, and he noticed other Soldiers having their leave requests granted, but, in each case, the command denied the applicant's requests. The applicant disclosed that the reason for his AWOL was that he felt he was being discriminated against, and he incurred anxiety from the harassment he received from his platoon sergeant. (3) When the applicant's son was born, he asked his platoon sergeant for leave, but the platoon sergeant refused. The applicant elevated his request to his 1SG, but the 1SG just said he had to back the platoon sergeant. The applicant went back to his platoon sergeant and again asked why he had denied the applicant's leave; the platoon sergeant replied, "Because I said so." (4) This same platoon sergeant would let other Soldiers use the applicant's assigned truck to carry loads, but then make the applicant clean up the truck afterwards. At one point, the leadership put him on extra duty, and he had to move a large pile of rocks from one side of a building to the other; the only tool they gave him for the job was a small plastic shovel, and, seeing this, the other Soldiers laughed at him. (5) The 1SG wrote, "He (applicant) is also claiming that this discrimination and the harassments, from the Platoon SGT and other soldiers, caused him to have anxiety, depression, and PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), and it was a factor causing him to go AWOL." (6) Applicant states his 1SG put together the applicant's discharge papers and told him, after he signed, he could take leave. No one ever counseled him formally on the consequences of an under other than honorable conditions character of service. (7) 1SG (R) ended the interview statement by declaring, "I, , will stake my 22 years of active duty service, to our country, and that [applicant] deserves to be upgraded to a general discharge; if nothing else, be reviewed under PTSD being in a hostile environment within his own unit." 3. A review of the applicant's service record reveals the following: a. On 13 April 1982, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Army for 3 years. Upon completion of initial entry training and the award of military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C (Motor Transport Operator), orders assigned him to a training battalion at Fort Leonard Wood; he arrived, on 31 August 1982. Effective 13 October 1982, the applicant's chain of command promoted him to private (PV2)/E-2. b. Between 28 October 1982 and 16 March 1983, the applicant's noncommissioned officer (NCO) leadership issued the applicant eight DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Form): * 28 October 1982 – Failure to follow instructions by taking excessive breaks and joyriding * 13 December 1982 – Absent from 0700 hours physical training (PT) formation * 21 January 1983 – Applicant eligible for promotion to private first class (PFC)/E-3, but his supervisor did not recommend him due to poor duty performance and misconduct * 27 January 1983 – Lack of motivation in performing assigned tasks, and requiring constant close supervision * 4 February 1983 – Operating a privately-owned vehicle on post without insurance and a post registration * 7 February 1983 – Failing to report to the company commander's barracks inspection and having a dirty personal area * 10 March 1983 – Failing to report for Class A Uniform In-Ranks inspection * 16 March 1983 – Failing to properly sign out for his hospital appointment c. On 22 March 1983, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failing to report at the time prescribed to the 10 March 1983 Class A Uniform In-Ranks inspection; the imposing commander's punishment was placement at the Post's Correctional Custody Facility (CCF) for 7 days. d. On 5 April 1983, the applicant's NCO counseled him for failing his NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) test. On 7 April 1983, the same NCO counseled him for still being in bed at 0600 when he was supposed to be up by 0530. e. On 11 April 1983, medical authority approved a DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile Board Proceedings) pertaining to the applicant; the form indicated that, due to his flat feet, his doctors had issued him a permanent "3" profile for his lower extremities. f. On 28 April 1983, the applicant's commander requested the military hospital evaluate the applicant because, by the height/weight tables in Army Regulation (AR) 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program), the applicant was 14 pounds overweight. On 16 May 1983, the military hospital responded, reporting that the applicant's body fat percentage was 1.2 percent above standard, and his overweight condition was not the result of a medical condition; the hospital recommended the applicant's placement on a weight control program. g. On 17 May 1983, the installation advised the applicant's commander that the applicant's recent DA Form 3349, reflecting a permanent "3" profile, meant the applicant might no longer be qualified for his MOS. On 10 June 1983, the applicant affirmed he was able to perform his MOS duties in a combat environment worldwide, and the applicant's commander concurred. h. Between 2 June and 19 July 1983, the applicant's NCO leadership issued the applicant five DA Forms 4856 for such infractions as leaving garbage in his wall locker during an inspection, being absent from PT formation, and gaining 9 pounds within two weeks of his last weigh-in. i. On 31 August 1983, medical authority reissued the applicant's permanent level "3" lower extremity profile; on 28 September 1983, the applicant's commander recommended the applicant's reclassification, noting, "[Applicant's] physical condition does not completely impede his performance of duty, but (it) does present a serious problem." j. On 6 September 1983, the applicant's unit reported him as AWOL; on 11 September 1983, after a 5 day absence, the applicant returned to military control. On 16 September 1983, the applicant accepted NJP for AWOL, from 6 to 11 September 1983; the imposing commander reduced him to private (PV1)/E-1. k. On 22 September 1983, the installation again advised the applicant's commander that the applicant's recent DA Form 3349, reflecting a permanent "3" profile, indicated the applicant might not be qualified for his MOS. On 29 September 1983, the battalion personnel NCO responded, stating the applicant was pending separation, under the provisions of chapter 13 (Separation for Unsatisfactory Performance), AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). l. On 22 September 1983, Master Sergeant (MSG) , Course Chief QAC, prepared a statement about the applicant. (1) MSG asserted the applicant had established a continuous pattern of unsuitable performance; he was overweight and physical unfit, and his permanent profile prevented him from exercising to lose weight. (2) MSG went on to state that weight was not the applicant's only problem; he maintained poor personal hygiene, and his personal appearance and general living area were always unprepared for daily living. By failing to wash his fatigues after several days' wear, he was causing his coworkers to have "unpleasant working conditions." (3) The applicant had received NJP for poor duty performance and completed 14 days in the CCF; after closely supervising the applicant, MSG and other supervisors concluded the applicant was of "no future benefit to the U.S. Army." (4) At one point, the applicant came to MSG and told him he wanted a discharge; MSG explained the "details of wanting to be discharged and asked him to change his performance and attitude and he would have no problem. [Applicant], however, does not respond to orders or follow instructions to the best interest of the mission. He also has a tendency to rebut authority and the chain of command." (5) MSG closed by stating, "I personally and professionally recommend that [applicant] be immediately separated from the U.S. Army under chapter 14 (apparently referring to chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct), AR 635-200). [Applicant] could never be a productive member of today's modern Army." m. On 27 September 1983, the applicant underwent a separation physical, based on a pending chapter 14, AR 635-200 discharge action. (1) In item 11 (Have You Ever or Have You Now) of his Standard Form (SF) 93 (Report of Medical History), he checked the block indicating he felt depression or excessive worry, but he provided no further comments; the examining physical noted, "some sleepwalking during B.T. has disappeared. All other statements in item 11, not remarkable." (2) On the applicant's SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination), the physician noted the applicant's permanent level "3" profile for lower extremities, but otherwise found him qualified for separation. n. On 3 October 1983, the applicant again left his unit in an AWOL status; he returned to his unit on 10 October 1983. On 12 October 1983, the applicant's commander advised him, via memorandum, that he was initiating separation action against the applicant, under chapter 14, AR 635-200, due to the applicant's pattern of misconduct; the commander intended to recommend an under other than honorable conditions discharge. o. On 12 October 1983, the applicant's commander also prepared his separation recommendation. (1) The commander stated the applicant had been counseled numerous times, and, while he might respond to counseling for a short period (when he thought doing so would be to his advantage), the applicant's duty performance had otherwise continued to deteriorate over the last 6 months. (2) When confronted with his misconduct, the applicant invariably blamed others and refused to take responsibility for his actions. The commander concluded by stating, "(The applicant) is without question the worst Soldier in this unit. His attitude is cancerous to its well-being. I recommend that any further rehabilitation and counseling requirements be waived." p. On 18 October 1983, the applicant accepted NJP for having been AWOL, from 3 until 10 October 1983 (7 days). q. On 24 October 1983, the Community Mental Hygiene Activity provided an evaluation of the applicant. (1) An SF 600 (Health Record – Chronological Record of Medical Care) states, "No psych hx, denies drug abuse & heavy ETOH use, mult somatic c/o, c/o family problems, wants out of Army. No sigif med/surg hx...." (2) On 24 October 1983, a psychiatrist completed a DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation) for the applicant; the form indicated the applicant met medical retention standards and was cleared for administrative action. r. On 2 November 1983, after consulting with counsel (a Judge Advocate General officer), the applicant acknowledged counsel had informed him of the basis for, and the effects of, his pending separation action. The applicant elected to waive his rights to appear personally, with counsel, before a board of officers, and he opted not to submit statements in his own behalf. In addition, the applicant affirmed, "I … understand that, as the result of issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, I may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a Veteran under both Federal and State laws and that I may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life." s. On 2 November 1983, the applicant appealed his NJP, and he submitted the following statement: (1) The applicant had gone home to see his son; over the weekend, the applicant and his son's mother noticed the baby appeared ill, so they took him to a local hospital, and the doctors diagnosed him with blood poisoning. (2) The applicant called his commander and told him what was happening; the commander directed the applicant to call the 1SG. The applicant later went back to the hospital and asked his girlfriend's mother to telephone his 1SG; the girlfriend's mother later reached the applicant at the hospital to say the 1SG wanted the applicant to contact him. (3) The applicant's son took a turn for the worse, and the doctors placed his son in intensive care. The applicant called his commander with this information, and, while the commander said he understood how the applicant felt, the applicant had "went the wrong way about doing things, because I thought he could put me on leave or give me some extra days or something. But he told me that it was out of his hands now, but (he) would take the matter into consideration." (4) The commander stated that the applicant had committed a serious offense and directed him to return to the unit as soon as possible but added that the applicant should do what he thought was best, so the applicant decided to stay. t. On 4 November 1983, the appellate authority denied the applicant's NJP appeal. u. On 28 November 1983, the separation authority approved the commander's separation recommendation and directed the applicant's under other than honorable conditions discharge; on 30 November 1983, orders discharged the applicant accordingly. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 7 months, and 6 days of his 3-year enlistment contract, with two periods of lost time (19830906-19830910 and 19831003-19831009). The form additionally listed the following: * Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) – Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) * Item 25 (Separation Authority) – AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b (Acts or Patterns of Misconduct – A Pattern of Misconduct) * Item 26 (SPD) – "JKM" * Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – Misconduct – Pattern of Misconduct v. On 10 November 2020, the applicant petitioned the ABCMR, requesting an upgraded character of service. (1) The applicant argued that, for 2 years, he saw his leadership grant leave for others, but deny him the chance to take leave. He went AWOL, and when he came back, they told him he was to be discharged; they said, if he signed the separation papers, they would let him go home. The applicant asserted he had no idea he could consult with a legal officer, and no one in his unit ever counseled him about the effect of signing his discharge papers, what how an adverse character of service would affect his life. (2) On 15 October 2021, the Board voted to deny the applicant's request. (a) The Board noted the unavailability of the applicant's separation packet but presumed administrative regularity based on the applicant's DD Form 214. (b) After carefully considering the applicant's request and the available evidence, the Board found no mitigating factors for the applicant's active duty service, and he had failed to submit letters of support and proof of post-service achievements. 4. Concerning administrative regularity, AR 15-185 (ABCMR) states: a. The ABCMR decides cases on the evidence of record; it is not an investigative body. Additionally, the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity (i.e., the documents in an applicant’s service records are accepted as true and accurate, barring compelling evidence to the contrary). b. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming the foregoing presumption by presenting the Board with a preponderance of documentary evidence; (for example, records created at the time and/or third party statements, made by members of an applicant's leadership or persons with firsthand knowledge of an applicant's circumstances). 5. AR 635-5-1 (SPD), in effect at the time, did not contain SPDs "KLM" and "JDM." 6. Clemency guidance to the Boards for Correction of Military/Navy Records (BCM/NR) does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority to ensure each case will be assessed on its own merits. In determining whether to grant relief 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. This includes consideration of changes in policy, whereby a service member under the same circumstances today would reasonably be expected to receive a more favorable outcome. 7. Published guidance to the BCM/NRs clearly indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 8. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. Background: The applicant is requesting a reconsideration of his previous request to upgrade his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable 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 RA on 13 April 1982. * Between 28 October 1982 and 16 March 1983, the applicant's noncommissioned officer (NCO) leadership issued the applicant eight DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Form): * 28 October 1982 – Failure to follow instructions by taking excessive breaks and joyriding * 13 December 1982 – Absent from 0700 hours physical training (PT) formation * 21 January 1983 – Applicant eligible for promotion to private first class (PFC)/E- 3, but his supervisor did not recommend him due to poor duty performance and misconduct * 27 January 1983 – Lack of motivation in performing assigned tasks, and requiring constant close supervision * 4 February 1983 – Operating a privately-owned vehicle on post without insurance and a post registration * 7 February 1983 – Failing to report to the company commander's barracks inspection and having a dirty personal area * 10 March 1983 – Failing to report for Class A Uniform In-Ranks inspection * 16 March 1983 – Failing to properly sign out for his hospital appointment * On 22 March 1983, the applicant accepted NJP, under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failing to report at the time prescribed to the 10 March 1983 Class A Uniform In-Ranks inspection; the imposing commander's punishment was placement at the Post's Correctional Custody Facility (CCF) for 7 days. * Between 2 June and 19 July 1983, the applicant's NCO leadership issued the applicant five DA Forms 4856 for such infractions as leaving garbage in his wall locker during an inspection, being absent from PT formation, and gaining 9 pounds within two weeks of his last weigh-in. * On 6 September 1983, the applicant's unit reported him as AWOL; on 11 September 1983, after a 5 day absence, the applicant returned to military control. On 16 September 1983, the applicant accepted NJP for AWOL, from 6 to 11 September 1983; the imposing commander reduced him to private (PV1)/E-1. * On 3 October 1983, the applicant again left his unit in an AWOL status; he returned to his unit, on 10 October 1983. On 12 October 1983, the applicant's commander advised him, via memorandum, that he was initiating separation action against the applicant, under chapter 14, AR 635-200, due to the applicant's pattern of misconduct; the commander intended to recommend an under other than honorable conditions discharge * The applicant was discharged on 30 November 1983. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b (Acts or Patterns of Misconduct – A Pattern of Misconduct) with a UOTHC characterization of service. c. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor reviewed this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s reconsideration request, his ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), DD Form 214, and post-service achievements. The VA electronic medical record and DoD health record were reviewed through Joint Longitudinal View (JLV). Lack of citation or discussion in this section should not be interpreted as lack of consideration. d. The applicant asserts that during his time in service he had impairments that negatively affected the quality of his service; specifically, he was young and immature; he had marital and family issues, as well as psychiatric problems; and he had to endure constant hazing, harassment, and racial discrimination. The applicant maintains he tried his best to serve, noting he helped his unit achieve "FMC" and unit awards, but ultimately, he was unsuccessful, due to the hostile and uncaring environment he faced. Given the excessive punishments the applicant appeared to receive, including 7 days in correctional custody for failure to report, appears consistent with the applicant’s reported experience of mistreatment by his command. In addition, the refusal to grant leave to the father of an ill newborn baby appears inhumane, and the response to his attempts to explain himself to his command appeared to lack compassion. e. No active-duty electronic medical records were available for review. VA electronic medical records (JLV) evidences an 18 September 2010 letter to the applicant informing him that he is ineligible for care via the VA due to the characterization of his discharge. A Physical Profile Board Proceeding dated 25 August 1983 indicates the applicant’s physical condition of a lower extremity issue did not completely impede his performance of duty but presented a serious problem. The evaluator recommended a change in PMOS. On 22 September 1983, the installation again advised the applicant's commander that the applicant's recent DA Form 3349, reflecting a permanent "3" profile, indicated the applicant might not be qualified for his MOS. However, on 29 September 1983, the battalion personnel NCO responded, stating the applicant was pending separation, under the provisions of chapter 13 (Separation for Unsatisfactory Performance), AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). It is unclear whether his discharge was intended to prevent the applicant from being fully evaluated and referred to the IDES process, regarding his service incurred medical condition which might have disqualified him from further military service and contributed to the termination of his military career. It appears that a referral of his case to the IDES process was warranted at the time. f. On a separation physical examination, dated 27 September 1983, the applicant endorsed symptoms of anxiety and depression, sleepwalking, and various physical ailments. However, on 24 October 1983, a psychiatrist completed a Mental Status Examination indicating the applicant met medical retention standards and was cleared for administrative action. g. Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral Health Advisor that there is minimal but credible evidence that the applicant had a behavioral health condition during military service that mitigates his discharge. Per Liberal Consideration, the applicant’s contention of experiencing mental health symptoms of depression and anxiety warrants consideration by the board. 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 a mitigating condition. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant asserts anxiety and depression as well as familial stressors. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The applicant asserts symptoms of anxiety and depression that he endorsed in his separation physical examination related to the bullying and harassment he experienced during military service. In addition, he experienced significant distress/familial stressors due to having an ill newborn baby that he was not allowed to visit. While there are minimal medical records from his time in service, the applicant’s separation physical examination indicates that he reported symptoms of anxiety, depression, and sleepwalking as well as other physical ailments. The applicant was discharged from military service due to AWOL, failure to report, lack of motivation, weight gain, and being accused of insufficient cleanliness. The reported issues the applicant presented with are hallmark symptoms of depression, including avoidance, weight gain, lack of motivation, difficulty with self-care and hygiene. Given the nexus between depression and anxiety and his reported misconduct, the reason for his discharge is mitigated by his behavioral health condition. BOARD DISCUSSION: The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical review, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct, and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the applicant's behavioral health claim and the review and conclusions of the ARBA BH Advisor. The Board found the applicant evidence of post-service achievements provided by the applicant insufficient in support of a clemency determination. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and, although the Board concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official regarding there being minimal but credible evidence that the applicant had a behavioral health condition during military service, the Board found this does not fully mitigate the misconduct that led to his discharge. The Board found the recommendation from his company commander clearly shows a well-established pattern of misconduct that warranted the type of discharge he received. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined the character of service the applicant received upon separation, the reason for separation, and the associated codes were not in error or unjust. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20210005202 on 15 October 2021. 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, United State Code, section 1556 (Ex Parte Communications Prohibited) 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. 2. AR 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge) stated an honorable discharge was separation with honor. Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate was appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would clearly be inappropriate. Where there were infractions of discipline, commanders were to consider the extent thereof, as well as the seriousness of the offense. Separation authorities could furnish an honorable discharge when the Soldier's subsequent honest and faithful service over a greater period outweighed the disqualifying entries found in his/her record. It was the pattern of behavior, and not the isolated instance, which commanders should consider as the governing factor. b. Paragraph 3-7b stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Section II (Secretarial Authority), AR 635-200 stated the separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government was the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army and, except as delegated, was to be implemented only by the Secretary's authority. Such a discharge or release from active duty was to be based on the determination that separation was in the best interests of the Army. d. Paragraph 14-12b (A Pattern of Misconduct) stated members were subject to separation under this provision when they showed a pattern of misconduct involving acts of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities, and/or displayed conduct that was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 3. AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, showed the SPD and narrative reason for separation were linked to the regulatory separation authority. The regulation referred DD Form 214 preparer to AR 635-5-1 (SPD) to obtain the required entries for items 26 (SPD) and 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation). 4. AR 635-5-1, in effect at the time, showed Soldiers separated per paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, received the SPD of "JKM" and its associated narrative reason for separation was, "Misconduct – Pattern of Misconduct." Soldiers separated per secretarial authority were issued the following narrative reason for separation: "Directed by Service Secretary"; the SPD was "JFF." 5. 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. 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 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; 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 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 misconduct that led to the discharge. 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, 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. 8. AR 15-185 states the ABCMR decides cases on the evidence of record; it is not an investigative body. Additionally, the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity (i.e., the documents in an applicant’s service records are accepted as true and accurate, barring compelling evidence to the contrary). The applicant bears the burden of proving the existence of an error or injustice by presenting a preponderance of evidence, meaning there is a greater than a 50 percent chance that what an applicant’s claims is true. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20230001885 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1