IN THE CASE OF:  
 
  BOARD DATE: 3 November 2023 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230002743 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions characterization of service to honorable. 
 
 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
 
• DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) 

• DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge) 

• fifty (50) pages of in-service medical documents  

• Letter of Commendation, 18 June 1982 

• two (2) Letters of Appreciation, 25 June 1981, and 30 June 1981 


 
 
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, she went home on leave and got sick and never returned to Germany. The military police picked her up and she tried to explain but they did not want to listen. She was a good soldier, who loved the Army. Her health got the best of her. She asks the Board to please have some consideration when deciding on her case. Additionally, her application to the Board notes her request is related to other mental health issues. 
 
3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 September 1980. The highest rank/grade she attained was private first class (PFC)/E-3 on 1 July 1981. 
 
4.  Her record contains (3) DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) dated 29 July 1982, 5 August 1982, and 1 December 1982, which show:  
 
 
 a.  the below changes to applicant's duty status: 
 
• present for duty (PDY) to Hospital – 29 July 1982 

• hospital to absent without leave (AWOL) – 5 August 1982 

• dropped from the rolls (DFR) to Attached/PDY – 1 December 1982 


 
 b.  the applicant was apprehended by civilian authorities and returned to military control. 
 
5.  Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 6 December 1982; specifically, she was charged with absenting herself from her unit without leave from on or about 5 August 1982 to on or about 1 December 1982. 
 
6.  On 7 December 1982, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the possible effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions if this request was approved, and of the procedures and rights available to her. Following this consultation, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provision of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separation-Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service-in lieu of court-martial. She made the following acknowledgements in her request: 
 
 a.  She acknowledged she was making this request of her own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person. She further acknowledged she understood the elements of the offense(s) charged and she was guilty of the charge(s) against her or of (a) lesser included offense(s) which also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. 
 
 b. She further acknowledged and understood that if her discharge request were approved, she could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, she could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and she could be deprived of her rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. 
 
 c.  She was advised she could submit any statements she desired in her behalf. She elected not provide a statement. 
 
7.  The applicant's immediate and intermediate commanders recommended approval of her request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial on 13 December 1983, and further recommend an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 
 
8.  On 16 December 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10 and ordered the issuance of an under other than honorable condition discharge and the applicant’s reduction to private/E-1. 
 
9.  The applicant was discharged on 14 January 1983, under AR 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial in the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E- 1, with a date of rank of 16 December 1982. Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows her character of service was under other than honorable conditions. This form also shows she completed, 1 year, 11 months, and 20 days of net active service this period with lost time from 19820805-19821130. Additionally, she received a separation code of "KFS" and a reentry code of "3B, 3" 
 
10.  The applicant provides 50 pages of in-service medical documents from her treatment health record that outline her medical history in the Army. 
 
11.  Regulatory guidance provided a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for Soldier's discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. However, when characterization of service under other than honorable conditions is not warranted for a member in entry level status, the separation will be described as an entry level separation. 
 
12.  MEDICAL REVIEW: 
 
    a.  Background: The applicant is requesting an upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to honorable. She contends other mental health condition mitigates her 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 29 September 1980.  

• Her record contains (3) DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) dated 29 July 1982, 5 August 1982, and 1 December 1982, which show the following changes to applicant's duty status: 

• present for duty (PDY) to Hospital – 29 July 1982 

• hospital to absent without leave (AWOL) – 5 August 1982 

• dropped from the rolls (DFR) to Attached/PDY – 1 December 1982 

• Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 6 December 1982; specifically, she was charged with absenting herself from her unit without leave from on or about 5 August 1982 to on or about 1 December 1982. 


• The applicant was discharged on 14 January 1983, under AR 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial. Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows her character of service was under other than honorable conditions. 


 
    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, DD Form 293, ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), DD Form 214, in-service medical documentation, letters of commendation and appreciation, and documents from her service record and separation. 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 states she went home on leave and got sick and never returned to Germany. The military police picked her up and she tried to explain but they did not want to listen. She was a good soldier, who loved the Army. Her health got the best of her. She asks the Board to please have some consideration when deciding her case. Additionally, in her application to the Board she notes her request is related to other mental health issues. 
    e.  Due to the period of service, no active-duty electronic medical records were available for review. However, the applicant submitted extensive hard copy medical documentation from her time of service, indicating ongoing medical distress with symptoms including vomiting, constipation, fever, gastro-intestinal distress, and concerns about possible gynecological issues. The applicant was seen in the emergency room on 1 June 1981 and again on 5 September 1981 and 6 September 1981. The applicant was again seen on 9 September 1981 and admitted into the hospital on 14 September 1981 for a lengthy hospitalization. A medical note dated 4 December 1981 indicates she was discharge from the 2nd General Hospital after a lengthy evaluation, no pathology was identified, and her symptoms were described as transient and not disabling. The clinical impression indicates no anxiety, depression or malingering and psychological testing via the MMPI was normal with no concern that her medical symptoms were due to mental health issues. Overall, her symptoms did not have a clear medical diagnosis. However, the medical records indicate a medical provider suspected adult Hirschsprung’s disease, a rare birth defect in which the nerves are missing from parts of the intestine. The most prominent symptoms of the disease include constipation, vomiting and abdominal pain. 
    f.  Although, no medical documentation during or post-military service substantiate her assertion of a BH condition. The medical records submitted for review indicate ongoing medical issues, while in-service, that required hospitalization due to vomiting, 
abdominal pain, and other symptoms. The applicant is not service connected and there are no VA electronic medical records (JLV) available for review.   
    g.  After review of all available documentation, there is insufficient evidence of a mitigating BH conditions. However, the applicant was clearly in medical distress, during her time in service, and her acute distress likely impacted her decision to go AWOL. Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral Health Advisor the applicant had a medical condition that likely impacted her decision-making during her time in service and would mitigate her misconduct.  
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 other mental health condition mitigates her discharge.  
 
    (2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant self-asserted having acute distress due to ongoing medical issues.  
 
    (3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. There is evidence of the applicant experiencing significant medical distress that likely impacted her decision to go AWOL. The applicant reports that she became ill while on leave and was unable to return to service due to debilitating symptoms and her distress. The applicant provided extensive medical documentation from her time in service that evidenced ongoing acute medical symptoms that required hospitalization.   
 
 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
 After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was 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 agreed that at no fault of the applicant, there were circumstances outside her span of control, specifically, a medical condition that required medical care over the span of several months. Medical records indicate that a medical provider suspected the applicant had a disease, for which the most prominent symptoms were those exhibited by the applicant. After due consideration of the request, the Board determined the evidence presented met the burden of proof in determining an error or injustice and a recommendation for relief is warranted.   
BOARD VOTE: 
 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
 
:xx :xx : GRANT FULL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
 
: : :xx DENY APPLICATION 
 
 
 
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 
 
The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by issuing the applicant a DD Form 214 for the period ending 14 January 1983 showing in: 
 
• item 24 (Characterization of Service): Honorable 
• item 25 (Separation Authority):  Army Regulation 635-200 
• item 26 (Separation Code):  JFF 
• item 27 (Reentry Code):  1 
• item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation):  Secretarial Authority 
     
 
  12/14/2023

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 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.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  
 
 c.  Chapter 10 provided that a member who had committed an offense or offenses, for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate.  
 
3.  On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR) 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. 
 
4.  Section 1556 of Title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of the Army to ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) be provided with a copy of any correspondence and communications (including summaries of verbal communications) to or from the Agency with anyone outside the Agency that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute. ARBA medical advisory opinions and reviews are authored by ARBA civilian and military medical and behavioral health professionals and are therefore internal agency work product. Accordingly, ARBA does not routinely provide copies of ARBA Medical Office recommendations, opinions (including advisory opinions), and reviews to Army Board for Correction of Military Records applicants (and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication. 
 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//