IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 17 January 2024

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230006219


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions 
(UOTHC) discharge to under honorable conditions (general) or honorable.

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

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Self-authored letters (2)

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 he received a knee injury in the Army, and he is having 
problems with it now. Also, he started using drugs during a stressful assignment in 
Germany (Fulda Gap). He was sitting in a radio teletype shelter waiting to send a 
message that Russian tanks were coming through the Gap with tanks. He knew that his 
life could be over soon. He began to drink and do drugs to cope with the stress. As a 
young man he felt that it was his duty to join the Army. He was too young to understand 
the problems that would come to him later in life, from his service injuries.

3.  On his DD Form 149, the applicant notes post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and 
other mental health as issues related to his request. 

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army, on 3 January 1978. He reenlisted on 
5 August 1980. The highest grade he attained was E-4.

5.  Before a general court-martial on 13 April 1981, at Fulda, Germany, the applicant 
was found guilty of one specification of committing an assault upon  by stabbing her in 
the back with a dangerous weapon, to wit: a knife with a three inch blade.

6.  The court sentenced him to reduction to the grade of E-1, confinement at hard labor 
for one year, and forfeiture of $400.00 a month for twelve months. The sentence was 
approved on 29 May 1981 and the record of trial was forwarded for appellate review.

7.  The U.S. Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence on 
14 August 1981.

8.  General Court-Martial Order 675, issued by Headquarters U.S. Disciplinary 
Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, KS on 5 October 1981, noted that the applicant's sentence 
had been affirmed and ordered the sentence duly executed.

9.  Standard Form (SF) 513 (Consultation Sheet), dated 16 July 1982, shows the 
applicant received treatment for chronic knee trouble in his left knee.

10.  A SF 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 1 March 1983, shows the 
applicant sought treatment for mental health issues. The attending physician noted the 
applicant wanted out of the Army and that he had increased difficulties adjusting to 
military life.

11.  On 1 July 1983, the applicant was reported as absent without leave (AWOL).

12.  Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 26 August 1983, for 
violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). His DD Form 458 (Charge 
Sheet) shows he was charged with one specification of going AWOL on or about 1 July 
1983.

13.  On 3 June 1986, the applicant surrendered to military authorities at Fort Polk, LA.

14.  The applicant's record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts 
and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing.

15.  The applicant was discharged on 24 July 1986. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms he was discharged under the 
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), 
Chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial. He was discharged in the 
lowest enlisted grade and his service was characterized as UOTHC. He completed 4 
years and 6 months of net active service this period with 1,484 days of lost time. 

16.  The applicant's DD Form 214 does not show his continuous honorable active 
service period information that is required for members who honorably served their first 
term of enlistment.

17.  The applicant was charged due to the commission of an offense punishable under 
the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Subsequent to being charged, he consulted with 
counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
Chapter 10. Such discharges are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by 
court-martial.

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

19.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

    a.  The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor was asked to review 
this case.  Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s ABCMR application and 
accompanying documentation, the military electronic medical record (AHLTA), the VA 
electronic medical record (JLV), the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), the 
Medical Electronic Data Care History and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) 
application, and the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System 
(iPERMS).  The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and 
recommendations:   
    b.  The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting an upgrade of his 24 July 
1986 discharge characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  On his 
DD 149, the applicant notes PTSD and other mental health conditions are related to his 
request.  

    c.  The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the 
circumstances of the case.  The applicant’s DD 214 shows he entered the regular Army 
on 3 January 1978 and was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 24 
July 1986 under the separation authority provided by chapter 10 of AR 635-200, 
Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel (15 September 1986): Discharge for the 
Good of the Service.  It lists two period of lost time: 19 September 1980 thru 8 
November 1981 and 1 July 1983 thru 2 June 1986.
    d.  A General Court-Martial Order dated 29 May 1981 show the applicant was found 
guilty of “commit assault upon  by stabbing her in the back with a dangerous weapon, to 
wit; a knife with a three-inch blade.”
    e.  He was seen by metal health on 8 June 1983 “complaining of wanting out of the 
Army with increase difficulties adjusting to military life.”  The provider wrote “Mental 
status evaluation within normal limits except patient has increased thoughts and 
feelings contradictive {sic} to desired military conduct.”  He was diagnosed with “Rule 
out conduct disorder and the provider noted they would consult his command.
    f.  A Charge Sheet (DD form 458) shows the applicant was charged with desertion 
from 1 July 1983 thru 3 June 1986.
    g.  Neither the applicant’s separation packet nor documents addressing his 
involuntary administrative separation were submitted with the application nor uploaded 
into iPERMS.
    h.  No medical documentation was submitted with the application.  Because of the 
period of service under consideration, there are no encounters in AHLTA.  JLV shows 
he has been diagnosed with non-service-connected psychosis not otherwise specified.
    i.  It is the opinion of the ARBA medical advisor that a discharge upgrade in not 
warranted.
Kurta Questions:
    (1)  Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the 
discharge?  Applicant claims PTSD and other mental health conditions
    (2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service?  Applicant 
claims PTSD and other mental health conditions
    (3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge?  NO:  
The applicant has submitted no medical documentation indicating a diagnosis of a 
service-connected mental health condition. Review of the VA medical records indicates 
that the applicant has been diagnosed with a nonservice connected BH condition. 
However, as per Liberal Consideration guidance, the applicant’s self-assertion alone 
merits consideration by the board.  
    j.  PTSD and other mental health conditions are associated with avoidant behaviors 
and would mitigate AWOL/Desertion.  However, it would not have affected his ability to 
differentiate right from wrong and adhere to the right and therefore could not mitigate 
therefore could not mitigate assault with a knife. 

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found 
within the military record, the Board found that partial relief was warranted. The Board 
carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support 
of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy 
and regulation, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal and clemency 
determinations requests for upgrade of his characterization of service.  Upon review of 
the applicant’s petition, available military records and the medical review, the Board 
concurred with the advising official finding insufficient evidence based on the lack of 
medical documentation besides his SF 600, dated1 March 1983, seeking a one-time 
treatment to support his mental health issues/PTSD.  The opine however noted the 
applicant’s PTSD and other mental health conditions are associated with avoidant 
behaviors and would mitigate AWOL/Desertion. Nonetheless, his mental health issues 
would not have affected his ability to differentiate right from wrong and adhere to the 
right and therefore could not mitigate therefore could not mitigate assault with a knife.

2.  The Board found the applicant provided no post service achievements or character 
letters of support that could attest to his honorable conduct for the Board to weigh 
clemency. The Board determined there is insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating 
factors to overcome the 1, 484 days of lost time and the assault on another Soldier by 
stabbing them in the back. 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.  However, during deliberation the Board determined the applicant had 
a prior period of honorable service which is not currently reflected on his DD Form 214 
and recommended that change be completed to more accurately show his period of 
honorable service by granting a partial upgrade.


BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:X	:X	:X	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 amend the 
DD Form 214 for the period ending 24 July 1986 by adding the following entries in 
item 18 (Remarks):

*	SOLDIER HAS COMPLETED FIRST FULL TERM OF SERVICE
*	CONTINUOUS HONORABLE SERVICE FROM 780103 UNTIL 800204

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 upgrade of the applicant’s under other than honorable 
conditions (UOTHC) discharge to under honorable conditions (general) or honorable.


	 
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.


ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):  N/A


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.  Section 1556 of Title 10, U.S. Code, requires the Secretary of the Army to ensure 
that an applicant seeking corrective action by 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.

3.  Army Regulation 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) provides: for 
Soldiers who have previously reenlisted without being issued a DD Form 214 and are 
separated with any characterization of service except "Honorable, enter Continuous 
Honorable Active Service From" (first day of service for which DD Form 214 was not 
issued) until (date before commencement of current enlistment). Then, enter the 
specific periods of reenlistment as prescribed above.

4.  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.

5.  The Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRB) and 
Service Boards for Correction of Military/Navy Records (BCM/NR), on 3 September 
2014, to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, 
and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members 
administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions and who have been 
diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian 
healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the 
characterization of the applicant's service.

6.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided clarifying 
guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 August 2017. The 
memorandum directed them to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for 
discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters 
relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD, traumatic brain injury, sexual 
assault, or sexual harassment. Standards for review should rightly consider the unique 
nature of these cases and afford each veteran a reasonable opportunity for relief even if 
the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years later. Boards are to give 
liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for 
relief is based in whole or in part on those conditions or experiences. 

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, Boards 
shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy 
changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, 
official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, 
and uniformity of punishment.

   b.  Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of 
service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not 
result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses 
or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for 
the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization.  
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20230006219


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1