IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 January 2024 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230006425 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his previous request for upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge) * Self-Authored Statement * Character Letters (two) * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Letter * Certificates * Medical Document 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 AR20180008087 on 26 January 2021. 2. The applicant states he experienced extreme depression due to the constant verbal abuse he received from Drill Sergeant’s and . He felt purposely picked out and was actually a target. He was humiliated after being told to get down and do pushups and it caused him to feel sad and depressed. He was written up for reckless driving after he followed the instructions of his drill sergeant, this again made him sad and depressed. He complained to his first sergeant about his feelings of sadness and depression, but he never acknowledged his concerns. He had multiple medical issues while at Fort Meade, MD. He begged for leave after one of his procedures and it was granted. When it was time for him to return to Fort Meade his extreme depression overtook him, and he lost his mind. He was weeping uncontrollably and could not stop. He is still suffering from the experiences he encountered while in the military. He has been under a doctor’s care for several years for all these ailments and finds it hard to gain meaningful employment as well as sustain his household. He has lost three wives due to his lack of performance sexually due to his erectile dysfunction. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 August 1979 for three years. His military occupational specialty was 95B (Military Police). 4. The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) on 12 March 1980 and dropped from the rolls on 11 April 1980. 5. A Commander’s Inquiry, dated 11 April 1980, shows the applicant claimed he was a minister of a religious denomination, and the mission of his Army unit was not compatible with his beliefs. He was interviewed by the Battalion Chaplain and was determined not to be a minister of any recognized religion and had no schooling and had not done any pastoral or mission work. He was told that if the mission of the unit was not compatible with his beliefs that he would have to show evidence his beliefs and his intentions i.e., transfer, reclassification, discharge etc. The unit was not aware of any specific complaints or actions other than a statement he would not return, contained in a letter sent to the unit commander on 24 March 1980. He was given leave to get married on 1 March 1980 and did not return. 6. The applicant was returned to military control on 9 December 1980. He surrendered to military authorities and was confined on 11 December 1980. 7. He did not desire a separation medical examination on 12 December 1980. 8. A Mental Status Evaluation on 16 December 1980, shows the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his commander. 9. Court martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 17 December 1980 for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL from on or about 12 March 1980 through 9 December 1980. 10. The available record is void of the applicant’s separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing. 11. The applicant was discharged on 29 January 1981. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10, for administrative discharge-conduct triable by court-martial. He was assigned Separation Code JFS with Reenlistment Code 3B. His service was characterized as UOTHC. He completed 8 months and 18 days of net active service. He had lost time from 12 March 1980 to 8 December 1980. 12. The issuance of a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, required the applicant to have requested from the Army – voluntarily, willingly, and in writing – discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. It is presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. No evidence that would indicate the contrary was provided. 13. The applicant provides: a. Gospel Minster License, dated 5 October 1997, and certificates of completion. b. A character letter from his wife states the applicant needs VA support. He has been depressed. She does not think he ever got over the death of his father and grandfather. He has not been able to keep housing, he drinks, is not paying bills on time and he disappears. She thinks he has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. c. A character letter for a social worker who attests to the applicant being a hard worker and distinguished individual dedicated to the service of others. He exhibits high standards of moral conduct and behavior for others to emulate. He has a positive attitude and is a respectful and courteous individual who is very kind with exceptional interpersonal skills and communicates effectively. He is trustworthy and faithful. d. VA letter, dated 21 September 2018, which shows the applicant is a homeless veteran receiving medical care at a VA medical Center. He and his family were primarily living out of their vehicle for over a month. He had limited resources and any help that could be provided would be greatly appreciated. e. A medical document shows a medical appointment. 14. On 26 January 2021, the ABCMR determined the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of the case were insufficient as a basis for correction of the applicant’s records. In connection with this application a Medical Review was completed that stated there is no indication in the available military records that the applicant failed psychiatric or medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40- 501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) while he was on active duty. 15. 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. 16. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. Background: The applicant is requesting a reconsideration of his previous request for upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to honorable. The applicant asserts other mental health condition mitigates 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 RA on 10 August 1979. * Applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) on 12 March 1980 and dropped from the rolls on 11 April 1980. * A Commander’s Inquiry, dated 11 April 1980, shows the applicant claimed he was a minister of a religious denomination, and the mission of his Army unit was not compatible with his beliefs. He was interviewed by the Battalion Chaplain and was determined not to be a minister of any recognized religion and had no schooling and had not done any pastoral or mission work. He was told that if the mission of the unit was not compatible with his beliefs that he would have to show evidence his beliefs and his intentions i.e., transfer, reclassification, discharge etc. The unit was not aware of any specific complaints or actions other than a statement he would not return, contained in a letter sent to the unit commander on 24 March 1980. He was given leave to get married on 1 March 1980 and did not return. * Applicant was returned to military control on 9 December 1980. He surrendered to military authorities and was confined on 11 December 1980. * Court martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 17 December 1980 for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL from on or about 12 March 1980 through 9 December 1980. * The available record is void of the applicant’s separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing. * Applicant was discharged on 29 January 1981. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10, for administrative discharge-conduct triable by court- martial. He was assigned Separation Code JFS with Reenlistment Code 3B. His service was characterized as UOTHC. c. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor reviewed this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s completed DD Form 293, DD Form 214, self-authored statement, character reference letters, VA letter, ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), medical document, and documents from his service record and separation packet. 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 he experienced extreme depression due to the constant verbal abuse he received from his drill sergeants. He felt picked on and targeted. He was humiliated after being told to get down and do pushups and it caused him to feel sad and depressed. He was written up for reckless driving after he followed the instructions of his drill sergeant. He complained to his first sergeant about his feelings of sadness and depression, but he never acknowledged his concerns. He had multiple medical issues while at Fort Meade, MD. He begged for leave after one of his procedures and it was granted. When it was time for him to return to Fort Meade, MD his depression overtook him, and he lost his mind. He was weeping uncontrollably and could not stop. He is still suffering from the experiences he encountered while in the military. He has been under a doctor’s care for several years for all these ailments and finds it hard to gain meaningful employment as well as sustain his household. He has lost three wives due to his lack of performance sexually due to his erectile dysfunction. e. No active-duty electronic medical records were available for review. Although the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the record, the court martial charges preferred against him indicate his being AWOL from on or about 12 March 1980 through 9 December 1980. He was given leave to get married on 1 March 1980 and did not return. At the time, there is no evidence the applicant indicated any behavioral health concerns as related to his AWOL, and instead, he intentionally tried to deceive per a Commander’s Inquiry, dated 11 April 1980, showing he claimed he was a minister of a religious denomination, and the mission of his Army unit was not compatible with his beliefs. The Battalion Chaplain determined the applicant was not a minister of any recognized religion, had no schooling, and had not done any pastoral or mission work. He was told that if the mission of the unit was not compatible with his beliefs that he would have to show evidence his beliefs and his intentions i.e., transfer, reclassification, discharge etc. The unit was not aware of any specific complaints or actions other than a statement he would not return, contained in a letter sent to the unit commander on 24 March 1980. A Mental Status Evaluation dated 16 December 1980, shows the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his commander and no mental health concerns were noted. f. Applicant is not service connected, possibly due to the characterization of his discharge. The VA electronic record available for review indicates the applicant has received intermittent services from the VA since September 2015, primarily related to his issues of homelessness. The applicant initially sought behavioral health services on 06 March 2023, over four decades post-military service. He reported depressive symptoms and was provided with cognitive behavioral therapy. The applicant discontinued treatment on 20 March 2023. However, was seen for a psychiatry/ medication appointment on 25 April 2023. At the time, he indicated his last depressive period occurred two months prior after he injured his back at work. He shared depressive episodes due to stressors. The applicant reported no prior history of behavioral health treatment and endorsed a history of drinking heavily, including daily consumption of cases of alcohol. Based on his reported symptoms, the applicant met criteria for Major Depressive Disorder and was prescribed medication. However, the applicant insisted he had a separate diagnosis of PTSD and was interviewed for a trauma history and PTSD symptoms. He denied having a combat history or any military related trauma. However, he endorsed significant trauma post-military service, unrelated to his service, including finding his murdered wife and witnessing several violent acts. On 05 July 2023, the applicant did not show for his schedule follow-up psychiatry appointment and to three subsequent appointments. After three “no show” appointments in a row, services were discontinued. g. Based on the information available, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral Health Advisor that there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant had a behavioral health diagnosis that mitigates his 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 asserts a mitigating condition. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant self-asserts other mental health condition on his application. However, there is no evidence of an in-service behavioral health diagnosis. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The available record is void of the applicant’s separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing. This limits this medical advisor’s ability to opine regarding medical mitigation. However, the available record indicates there is insufficient evidence of a mitigating BH condition while in military service. There is no evidence of an in-service BH diagnoses, and the VA has not service-connected the applicant for any BH condition. And while the applicant self-asserted other mental health condition on his application, the available medical documentation indicates the applicant initially sought behavioral health services over four decades post-military service. The medical documentation indicates the applicant was experiencing depressive symptoms related to situational stressors, and his reported traumatic events were unrelated to his military service and occurred post- military service. 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 medical review, the Board concurred with the advising official finding insufficient evidence to support the applicant had a behavioral health diagnosis that mitigates his misconduct. The opine noted there is insufficient evidence of a mitigating BH condition while in military service. There is no evidence of an in-service BH diagnoses, and the VA has not service-connected the applicant for any BH condition. And while the applicant self-asserted other mental health condition on his application, 2. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors for the misconduct to weigh a clemency determination. Liberal consideration was given to the applicant post service achievements and his letters of support attesting to his honorable conduct, his integrity and community service. However, the Board determined the applicant’s post service did not outweigh his misconduct of being AWOL for an extended period of time. The Board determined the applicant has not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence an error or injustice warranting the requested relief, specifically an upgrade of the under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge. Therefore, the Board determined amending the pervious Board determination is not warranted and denied relief. 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 AR20180008087 on 26 January 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, U.S. Code, Section 10, Title 1556, 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, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable discharge) states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. 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. Paragraph 3-7b (General discharge) states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a member whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge c. Chapter 10 of that regulation states an individual who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for which, includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. An Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate normally is appropriate for a member who is discharged for the good of the service. 3. 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. 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. 4. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20230006425 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1