IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 17 January 2024

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230006735


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of his 
under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) characterization of service to under 
honorable conditions (general).

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

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) with a self-authored 
statement
*	a copy of his social security card
*	a copy of his driver’s license, dated 3 July 2014
*	five statements of support, dated 20 February 2023 to 14 March 2023

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 AR20160013822 on 16 October 2018.

2.  As a new argument, the applicant states, in effect, he had a good career going. He 
did not seek counseling which led to poor decisions and the end of his career. His wife 
noticed a change in his behavior after he returned from Kuwait. He was withdrawn, 
made poor financial decisions, and they argued a lot. He realizes his actions were 
wrong and knows he cannot change the past. He has grown from the experience, and it 
will never happen again. He owns a trucking company and has created a positive work-
life balance which gives him financial stability and time with his family. 

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 April 1990 for a 3-year period. He 
subsequently reenlisted on 22 April 1993 and 2 October 1995. The highest rank he 
attained was sergeant/E-5.

4.  The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice on 26 September 1996 for issuing a check in the 
amount of $912.00 to Rader Volkswagen, with the intent to defraud, on or about 
16 January 1995, dishonorably failing to pay debt to Rader Volkswagen, on or about 
15 July 1996, 1 August 1996, 15 August 1996, and 1 September 1996, and for violating 
a lawful general order by utilizing an official government credit card for unauthorized 
cash advances and purchases, on or about 24 April 1996, 28 April 1996, 1 May 1996, 
and 21 May 1996. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of seven days of pay, 14 days 
of extra duty, and 14 days restriction.

5.  The applicant’s service record is void of the complete facts and circumstances 
surrounding his discharge. However, he was discharged on 7 February 1997, under the 
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), 
Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty) shows his character of service was UOTHC, with 
separation code KFS and reentry code RE-3. He was credited with 6 years, 10 months, 
and 5 days of net active service, with service in Southwest Asia from 8 June 1991 to 
8 September 1991. He was authorized or awarded the:

*	Meritorious Unit Commendation
*	Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd award)
*	National Defense Service Medal
*	Southwest Asia Service Medal with one bronze service star
*	Noncommissioned Officer’s Professional Development Ribbon with numeral 2
*	Army Service Ribbon
*	Overseas Service Ribbon (2nd award)
*	Air Assault Badge

6.  The Army Discharge Review Board reviewed the applicant’s request for an upgrade 
of his UOTHC characterization of service on 30 September 2011. After careful 
consideration, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and 
equitable. His request for relief was denied.

7.  The ABCMR reviewed the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his UOTHC 
characterization of service on 16 October 2018. After careful consideration, the Board 
determined the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a probable 
error or injustice. His request for relief was denied. However, it was determined the 
applicant’s record required an administrative correction to reflect his continuous 
honorable service from 4 January 1990 to 1 October 1995. Accordingly, he was issued 
a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) on 22 April 2020.

8.  The applicant provides:

   a.  Copies of his social security card and driver’s license dated 3 July 2014.

   b.  Five statements of support, dated 20 February to 14 March 2023, wherein the 
authors attest to the applicant’s good character. He is passionate about directing his 
children and other youth to strive for the betterment of others. He is dedicated to 
assisting others and demonstrates great moral integrity. A close family member of the 
applicant states he has noticed a deterioration of the applicant’s demeanor which he 
attributes to the mental, emotional, and physical health conditions which are a direct 
result of his years of active-duty service.

9.  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 a 
trial by court-martial. An UOTHC character of service is normally considered 
appropriate.

10.  The Board should consider the applicant's argument and/or evidence in accordance 
with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance.

11.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

    a.  Background: The applicant is requesting reconsideration of his previous request 
for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) characterization 
of service to under honorable conditions (general). The applicant asserted he 
experienced a change in behavior after his deployment (his application did not identify a 
mitigating condition or experience).   
    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 Regular Army on 3 April 1990. He subsequently 
reenlisted on 22 April 1993 and 2 October 1995.
*	The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment on 26 September 1996 for 
issuing a check in the amount of $912.00 to Rader Volkswagen, with the intent to 
defraud, on or about 16 January 1995, dishonorably failing to pay debt to Rader 
Volkswagen, on or about 15 July 1996, 1 August 1996, 15 August 1996, and 1 
September 1996, and for violating a lawful general order by utilizing an official 
government credit card for unauthorized cash advances and purchases, on or 
about 24 April 1996, 28 April 1996, 1 May 1996, and 21 May 1996. 
*	The applicant’s service record is void of the complete facts and circumstances 
surrounding his discharge. However, he was discharged on 7 February 1997, 
under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial 
with an UOTHC discharge. 
*	On 30 September 2011 the ADRB denied his request for upgrade. The ABCMR 
reviewed the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his UOTHC characterization 
of service on 16 October 2018. His request for relief was denied. However, it was 
determined the applicant’s record required an administrative correction to reflect 
his continuous honorable service from 4 January 1990 to 1 October 1995. 
Accordingly, he was issued a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) on 22 
April 2020.
    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, his 
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), his DD Form 214, some of his service and 
separation records (full facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not 
contained in the available records), as well as a self-authored statement and five 
statements of support. 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 asserted that his wife noticed a change in behavior after his return 
from Kuwait and that he should have sought counseling and the fact that he didn’t led to 
poor decision making. The applicant does not specify a mitigating condition or 
experience to consider. 

    e.  The applicant’s time in service predates use of electronic health records (EHR) by 
the Army, hence no EHRs are available for review. His service record and supporting 
documents did not contain his service treatment records (STR) and no other records 
were provided to substantiate his claim.

    f.  Per the applicant’s VA EHR, he has been service connected at 30% for chronic 
adjustment disorder. The applicant has been engaged in care at the VA since 1992 and 
with mental health care since 2013. He has been diagnosed with adjustment disorder, 
unspecified mood disorder, depression – unspecified, PTSD, other mixed or unspecified 
drug abuse, unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological 
condition, and inadequate housing utilities. Of note, he was diagnosed with PTSD 29 
December 2022, with the traumas contributing to his symptomology stemming from 
multiple events while deployed to Kuwait. He has engaged in therapy and medication 
management. The applicant also included a letter in his supporting documents from a 
previous therapist at a Vet Center from 2016, that indicates he was seen for ongoing 
therapy related to depression and posttraumatic stress. Through review of JLV, this 
applicant did have “Community Health Summaries and Documents” available. His 
summary indicated that he’s been diagnosed with alcohol abuse (2018). 
    g.  Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral 
Health Advisor that there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant had a 
condition or experience at the time of service, however, the applicant has since been 
service connected for chronic adjustment disorder, and has been diagnosed with PTSD. 
Regardless, this Agency Behavioral Health Advisor cannot fully provide an opine 
regarding an upgrade without documentation of the specific circumstance/behaviors or 
misconduct that led to his chapter 10 discharge. In addition, a diagnosis of PTSD nor 
chronic adjustment disorder would mitigate the known misconduct in his file (writing bad 
checks, misusing government credit card). 
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 other mental health. 

    (2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes, the 
applicant asserts a mental health issue was presenting during his time in the service.  

    (3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No, 
though this is opine is given with caution due to incomplete separation records. The 
applicant asserted other mental health mitigated his discharge, though did not explain 
further in his application. His EHR reflects that he has been service connected for a 
chronic adjustment disorder and has also been diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. 
However, it is unclear if there was other misconduct given his full separation record is 
not available for review. Also, an adjustment disorder, chronic adjustment disorder or 
PTSD would not mitigate writing bad checks or misusing a government credit card. 
There is no nexus between these potentially mitigating conditions and his misconduct, 
and neither condition affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in 
accordance with the right. 


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 
concurred with the advising official finding insufficient evidence to support the applicant 
had a condition or experience at the time of service. The medical opine found no nexus 
between these potentially mitigating conditions and his misconduct, and neither 
condition affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with 
the right.  The Board carefully considered the applicant’s post service achievements and 
his numerous character letters of support attesting to his honorable conduct and his 
extensive community service since his discharge. 

2.  The Board noted, the applicant’s two prior periods of honorable service and his 
corrected DD Form 215 dated 22 April 2020 showing his honorable service.  However, 
the Board concluded the applicant’s post service achievements could not outweigh the 
serious misconduct and determined there is insufficient evidence of in-service mitigation 
to overcome the writing of bad checks and misusing a government credit card. 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 under honorable conditions 
(general). Therefore, the Board 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 AR20160013822 on 16 October 2018.

	 
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 that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the 
presumption of administrative regularity. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and 
decides cases based on the evidence presented in the military records provided and the 
independent evidence submitted with the application.

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, 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.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20230006735


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1