IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 January 2024 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230006404 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) characterization of service to honorable. Additionally, he requests a personal appearance before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Statement of support, undated 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 AR20170011524 on 8 December 2020. 2. The applicant states, in effect, while performing his duties as a platoon leader, he went in search of a Soldier and personal friend who was missing from morning formation. He found the Soldier in his barracks room hanging from a rope. He committed suicide. The trauma from the event combined with a lack of support from his command interfered with his ability to continue working. He was slotted to go to drill sergeant school, and leaving the Army was not a decision he made lightly. This experience changed the course of his entire life, professionally and personally. He would like a small measure of justice for all the years he has carried this burden. The applicant notes post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental health as conditions related to his request. 3. As new evidence, the applicant provides an undated statement of support from , who has known him for over 30 years and was his girlfriend from 1985 to 1991. She states, in effect, prior to the event which took place in 1987, they had a great relationship. The applicant was polite, kind, and incredibly generous. He was happy and had a plan for his life. Following the event, he was never the same. He suffered nightmares, exhibited increasingly explosive behavior, and was impossible to live with. He became verbally and physically abusive towards her. Remaining a couple was no longer an option. He was a great Soldier and patriot. To see him fighting for the smallest benefits is a stain on our country. 4. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 August 1984 for a 4-year period. The highest rank he attained was specialist/E-4. 5. Two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) show the applicant’s duty status changed from Present for Duty (PDY) to Absent Without Leave (AWOL) on 21 July 1987. On 27 July 1987, the applicant surrendered to his unit. His duty status was changed from AWOL to PDY. 6. Two additional DA Forms 4187 show the following changes in the applicant’s duty status: * PDY to AWOL on 4 August 1987 * AWOL to Dropped from Rolls on 3 September 1987 7. A Personnel Control Facility Information Sheet, dated 6 October 1987, and the corresponding Interview Sheet, show the applicant surrendered to military authorities at Fort Meade, MD. He stated, in effect, he went AWOL because he was having problems at home and in the military. He approached his chain of command, but they kept putting him off. 8. Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 14 October 1987 for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The relevant DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows he was charged with two specifications of being AWOL from on or about 21 July 1987 until on or about 27 July 1987 and on or about 4 August 1987 until on or about 5 October 1987. 9. The applicant consulted with legal counsel on 14 October 1987. a. He 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 UOTHC discharge, and the procedures and rights that were available to him. b. After receiving legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge, for the good of the service, under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged his understanding that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He acknowledged making this request free of coercion. He further acknowledged understanding 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 (VA), and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. c. He was advised he could submit any statements he desired in his own behalf. He elected not to submit a statement. 10. The applicant's immediate commander recommended approval of the request for discharge for the good of the service and further recommended the issuance of an UOTHC discharge. 11. The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge on 4 November 1987. He directed the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and the issuance of a DD Form 794A (UOTHC Discharge Certificate). 12. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 30 November 1987, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service-in lieu of court-martial. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms his service was characterized as UOTHC, with separation code KFS and reenlistment code RE-3, RE-3B, RE-3C. He was credited with 3 years, 1 month, and 20 days of net active service this period, with lost time from 4 August 1987 to 4 October 1987. 13. The ABCMR reviewed the applicant’s request to upgrade his characterization of service on 8 December 2020. After careful consideration, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant a change to his characterization of service. The Board denied his request. Prior to closing the case, the Board recommended an administrative change to the applicant’s record. As a result, his DD Form 214 was amended to reflect the Overseas Service Ribbon. The applicant was issued a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) on 3 May 2021. 14. Administrative separations under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10 are voluntary requests for discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. An UOTHC character of service is normally considered appropriate. 15. The Board should consider the applicant's overall record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 16. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. Background: The applicant is requesting that his Under Other Than Honorable discharge be upgraded to Honorable due to experiencing PTSD and other mental health issues during his time in service. He is also requesting to meet with the Board. b. The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the service record documents, as the ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP) was not available. Below is a summary of information pertinent to this advisory. * Applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 09 Aug 1984. He was deployed to Korea from 17 Dec 1984 - 11 Dec 1985. Applicant was awarded the Army Service Ribbon and the Overseas Service Ribbon. * Applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from 21-27 Jul 1987 and from 04 Aug 1987 - 05 Oct 1987. His statement indicated, “went AWOL because he was having problems at home and in the military.” * Applicant’s request for discharge was approved by separation authority on 04 Nov 1987 for the “good of the service – in lieu of court-martial.” * The applicant’s separation packet was available for review. In addition, the applicant’s service record includes his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), which shows that the Army discharged the applicant “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” on 04 Nov 1987 c. 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), Personal Statement, his DD Form 214, as well as documents from his service record. The VA electronic medical record and DOD health record were reviewed through Joint Longitudinal View (JLV). d. This applicant asserted that PTSD was a mitigating factor in his discharge. His service record and supporting documents did not provide any service treatment records. However, a letter from his former girlfriend and a personal statement from the applicant did indicate the impact of prior trauma and PTSD related symptoms during his time in service. His former girlfriend noted, “he went on to tell me about discovering the body of a friend and fellow soldier who had killed himself. The scene he described was horrible and stressful just to hear. Prior to this event, the applicant and I had a great relationship. He was polite, kind, and incredibly generous…However after finding his friend dead and only a couple of doors away from his own living space, and then experiencing a total lack of support from his command, he was never the same. After he went AWOL, I let him stay with me off and on to keep him off the streets…He continued to suffer nightmares, exhibit increasingly explosive behavior and was generally impossible to live with.” Based on this documentation in its entirety, there are personalized indicators the applicant experienced mitigating conditions, PTSD related symptoms, that occurred during his time in service. e. Per the applicant’s VA EHR, he is not service connected for any medical or behavioral health concerns. The VA records had outpatient behavioral health entries between 09 Sep 2021 and 25 May 2023 which emphasized periods of quasi- homelessness, VA provider focus on relatively basic living skills and avoidance of illicit drugs. In addition to Problems related to psychosocial circumstances, the VA Problem List also identified other behavioral health conditions, Cocaine Use, Unspecified with cocaine-induced psychotic disorder with hallucinations and PTSD, Unspecified. f. In summary, applicant is not service connected for any behavioral health conditions. Additionally, there is limited documentation he has been treated for PTSD by VA other that PTSD inclusion on the Problem List. Applicant’s exposure to prior trauma and PTSD are primarily indicated by his self-report and that of his former girlfriend. That said, under liberal consideration, applicant’s self-assertion of PTSD can be determined as sufficient to establish occurrence of PTSD. Consequently, after reviewing the application and all supporting documents, it is the opinion of this Agency Medical Advisor that applicant more likely than not experienced a mitigating condition (PTSD) that significantly contributed to his specific misconduct of AWOL episodes. Kurta Questions: (1) Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate a discharge. Yes, he more likely than not experienced PTSD symptoms contributing to his substance AWOL episodes while still on active duty that was subsequently identified on the VA Problem List (JLV notes). (2) Did the condition exist or experience(s) occur during military service? Yes, there is applicant’s self-report, further corroborated by his former girlfriend, that he initially encountered PTSD related symptoms while on active duty. His exposure to the immediate aftermath of a suicide completion by hanging served as the traumatizing event that led to PTSD symptoms. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes, it mitigates for his misconduct of AWOL episodes as PTSD is often associated with going AWOL. As per liberal consideration, applicant’s self-assertion of PTSD alone merits consideration by the board. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not 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 noted the advising official finding that the applicant more likely than not experienced a mitigating condition (PTSD) that significantly contributed to his specific misconduct of AWOL episodes. Consideration was given to the applicant’s character letters of support and his self-authored statement of the trauma that led to his PTSD. Consideration was given to the applicant’s 3 years of service and his decorations and overall service. However, the Board after review found there is insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors based on the absence of acceptable evidence to substantiate his contentions and medical documentation. Based on the evidence, the Board determined the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust and denied relief. 2. The applicant’s request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, 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. 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 Board found 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 AR20170011524 on 8 December 2020. 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. Section 1556 of Title 10, U.S. 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. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides the ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing. 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 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. b. 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. c. 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. 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 Discharge Review Boards (DRB) and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR) 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. Standards for review should rightly consider the unique nature of these cases and afford each veteran a reasonable opportunity for relief even if the sexual assault or sexual harassment was unreported, or 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. 5. 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) AR20230006404 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1