IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 17 January 2024

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230007038


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  

*	upgrade his character of service from under honorable conditions, general, to 
honorable
*	change the narrative reason for separation from misconduct to something more 
favorable

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

DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the 
United States 

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 feels they took action on the situation but did not formally 
evaluate his mental health status. [He checked the box “Other Health Status” on his 
DD Form 293.] 

3.  Review of the applicant’s service records shows: 

	a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 January 2002, and he held military 
occupational specialty 11B, Infantryman.

	b.  On 10 June 2002, the applicant submitted a urine sample that tested positive for 
marijuana.  

	c.  On 11 July 2002, the applicant accepted field grade nonjudicial punishment under 
Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for wrongfully using marijuana. His 
punishment included reduction to private/E-1, forfeiture of pay, and extra duty and 
restriction.   

	d.  On 27 June 2002, the applicant underwent a formal mental status evaluation at 
Fort Bragg. The medical provider diagnosed him with 

*	Axis I: (A) adjustment disorder with mixed disturbances in emotion and 
conduct; (B) Occupational problems (military); (C) Adult anti-social behavior, 
and (D) THC Abuse by self-report
*	Axis II: Bo diagnosis
*	Axis III: No diagnosis. 

The provider psychiatrically cleared for any action deemed appropriate by his 
command. The applicant does not have a severe mental disorder and is not considered 
mentally disordered. However, the applicant manifests a long-standing disorder of 
character, behavior, and adaptability that is of such severity so as to preclude adequate 
military service. Although not currently at significant risk for suicide or homicide, due to 
these life-long patterns of maladaptive responses to routine personal and/or work-
related stresses, the service member may become dangerous to him or herself or 
others in the future. It is the professional opinion of the undersigned evaluator that this 
soldier's problem will not respond to command efforts at rehabilitation (such as transfer, 
disciplinary action, or reclassification) nor to any treatment methods currently available 
in any military mental health facility. The applicant should be expeditiously separated 
under administrative channels in his best interest and that of the Army. 

	e.  On 27 August 2002, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant 
of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with AR 635-200 
(Personnel Separations, now called Active Duty Enlisted Separation), paragraph 14-
12c, for misconduct - commission of a serious offense. The commander recommended 
a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The specific reasons: received a Field 
Grade Article 15 for wrongful use of marijuana, dated 19 July 2002.

	f.  On 28 August 2002, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's 
intent to separate him and subsequently consulted with legal counsel. He was advised 
of the basis for the contemplated separation for misconduct, the type of discharge he 
could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of 
this discharge, and of the procedures/rights that were available to him. He did not 
qualify for an administrative board because he had less than 6 years of total service. He 
further indicated that he understood: 

*	He could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general 
discharge was issued to him 
*	He could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under Federal and 
State laws as a result of the issuance of an under other than honorable 
conditions discharge
*	He could submit a person statement but elected not to do so  

   g.  On 9 September 2002, after the applicant’s acknowledgement, the applicant's 
immediate commander formally initiated separation action against him in accordance 
with AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct - commission of a serious offense. 
His chain of command recommended approval. 

	h.  On 16 September 2002, the separation authority approved the applicant’s 
discharge and ordered him discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14, 
by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense and directed his service be 
under honorable conditions (general). On 2 October 2002, the applicant was discharged 
accordingly. 

	i.  His DD?Form?214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms 
he was discharged on 2 October 2002 under AR 635-200, chapter 14-12c, by reason of 
misconduct, with an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service. 
(Separation Code JKQ, Reentry Code 3). He completed 8 months and 23 days of active 
service. His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded or authorized: Army Service Ribbon, 
Parachutist Badge, and Expert Badge with Rifle Bar. 

	j.  There is no indication the applicant has requested review of his administrative 
discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board.  

4.  By regulation, Soldiers are subject to separation under the provisions of paragraph 
14-12c of AR 635-200 for a commission of a serious offense. A discharge under other 
than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this 
chapter. 

5.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and his 
service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency 
determination guidance. 

6.  The applicant was sent a letter on 20 September 2023 alerting him that for the Army 
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to consider his application, he must 
provide a copy of the medical documents that support his issue, and that his case would 
be placed on hold for a period of 30 days. The applicant did not respond to this 
notification. 



7.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

    a.  Background: The applicant is requesting an upgrade of his character of service 
from under honorable conditions, general, to honorable and a change of the narrative 
reason for separation from misconduct to something more favorable. He contends 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 January 2002.
*	On 10 June 2002, the applicant submitted a urine sample that tested positive for 
marijuana and cocaine.  
*	On 11 July 2002, the applicant accepted field grade nonjudicial punishment under 
Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for wrongfully using marijuana.
*	A counseling form, dated 31 July 2002, indicates that on 27 July 2002 the applicant 
was caught having gained unauthorized access to an office. Upon further inspection, 
it was discovered that a laptop and zip drive were missing from the office.  
*	On 27 August 2002, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of 
his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with AR 635-200 
(Personnel Separations, now called Active Duty Enlisted Separation), paragraph 14-
12c, for misconduct - commission of a serious offense. The commander 
recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The specific 
reasons: received a Field Grade Article 15 for wrongful use of marijuana, dated 19 
July 2002.
*	His DD?Form?214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms he 
was discharged on 2 October 2002 under AR 635-200, chapter 14-12c, by reason of 
misconduct, with an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of 
service. (Separation Code JKQ, Reentry Code 3).

    c.  The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor 
reviewed this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s completed DD 
Form 293, his ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), DD Form 214, 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 feels the Army took action on the situation but did not 
formally evaluate his mental health status.

    e.  Due to the period of service, limited active-duty electronic medical records were 
available for review. However, on 27 June 2002 a mental status evaluation diagnosed 
the applicant with Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbances in emotion and conduct; 
Occupational problems (military); Adult anti-social behavior, and THC Abuse by self-
report. The provider psychiatrically cleared the applicant for any action deemed 
appropriate by his command and stated the applicant does not have a severe mental 
disorder and is not considered mentally disordered. However, the applicant manifests a 
long-standing disorder of character, behavior, and adaptability that is of such severity so 
as to preclude adequate military service. Although not currently at significant risk for 
suicide or homicide, due to these life-long patterns of maladaptive responses to routine 
personal and/or work-related stresses, the service member may become dangerous to 
him or herself or others in the future. It is the professional opinion of the undersigned 
evaluator that this soldier's problem will not respond to command efforts at rehabilitation 
(such as transfer, disciplinary action, or reclassification) nor to any treatment methods 
currently available in any military mental health facility. The applicant should be 
expeditiously separated under administrative channels in his best interest and that of 
the Army. 
    f.  The VA electronic medical record indicates the applicant is 30% service connected 
for a medical condition (flat foot condition) but not for any behavioral health condition. 
The applicant was sent a letter on 20 September 2023 alerting him that for the Army 
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to consider his application, he must 
provide a copy of the medical documents that support his issue. The applicant did not 
respond to this notification. However, his VA electronic medical record indicates 
inconsistent longstanding engagement with VA supportive services related to his 
polysubstance abuse disorder, homelessness, and issues with employment. The 
veteran initially interacted with the VA on 02 September 2014 but was found ineligible 
for services. On 29 August 2016, the applicant presented at River Center Shelter in 
Baton Rouge and reported he had just arrived at the shelter from Mississippi and was 
seeking employment but was found ineligible for VA services. Then on 18 January 
2017, he presented as a walk-in to a VA clinic in New Orleans for an initial assessment 
and reported interest in pursuing mental health treatment, assistance with 
homelessness, and assistance with theft of his identification. He was again informed of 
lack of eligibility. On 19 December 2017, he presented to the VA in California requesting 
housing assistance but declined physical, mental health or substance abuse services. 
He reported arriving the day prior from Louisiana where he was volunteering with the 
Red Cross.  At the time, the applicant reported that prior to that he lived in Houston. He 
was transported to the Villages at Cabrillo, a homeless shelter for veterans, in Long 
Beach, CA. The applicant was eligible and agreed to stay. He participated in a 
comprehensive initial assessment on 8 January 2018 and received ongoing supportive 
services with the goals of obtaining housing, employment, and service-connection. A 
follow-up encounter, dated 20 March 2018, indicates no psychosis or major depression 
and the applicant was continuing to put forth effort into securing housing, employment, 
and service-connection.  However, a summary of discharge dated 30 March 2018, 
indicates that on 29 March 2018 he decided to leave the program without consulting 
staff and did not provide a forwarding address. This was apparently precipitated by the 
applicant receiving a 20% rating for service connection along with back pay. On 23 July 
2018, the applicant presented to the emergency department due to substance induced 
psychosis. The record indicates his perceptual disturbances were the sequela of 
amphetamine intoxication and they resolved with sobriety and cessation of drug abuse. 
He was treated with medication to expedite his recovery and minimize his symptoms.  
On 23 December 2019, the applicant was interviewed in order to obtain admission into 
the US Vets Service Intensive Grant program for case management and transitional 
housing services to assist him in obtaining independent housing. 
    g.  The applicant was repeatedly hospitalized due to substance induced psychiatric 
episodes: 
*	19 July 2020 to 21 July 2020 due to heroin withdrawal.
*	7 July 2021 to 12 July 2021 due to polysubstance use disorder 
(methamphetamines, opioids, and benzodiazepines). 
*	21 October 2021 to 28 October 2021 due to active polysubstance use disorder 
(methamphetamines, fentanyl, heroin, opioids, and benzodiazepines.  He 
eloped from HUDVASH program and had been using/snorting heroin, meth, 
fentanyl, and benzodiazepines. 
*	9 November 2021 to 24 November 2021 due to Opioid substance use disorder 
including heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamines. 
*	20 January 2022 to 11 February 2022 diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder, 
polysubstance use (heroin, fentanyl, methamphetamines, benzodiazepines), 
and chronic homelessness, intermittently drinking and using drugs in past 
several months with multiple hospital admissions for drug use and withdrawal.
*	5 MAY 2022 to 11 May 2022 diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder, 
polysubstance use (heroin, fentanyl, methamphetamines, benzodiazepines), 
and chronic homelessness. 
*	20 May 2022 to 9 June 2022 diagnosed with Unspecified Mood disorder,
polysubstance abuse (heroin, fentanyl, methamphetamines, benzodiazepines), 
and chronic homelessness. Applicant was started on an outpatient regimen of 
suboxone on 5/31/2022, with good response. However, on 9 June 2022 he felt 
unable to remain longer on the unit and decided to leave in order to use. He 
was informed about the hazards of illicit/recreational methamphetamine use and 
accepted a dose of naloxone 

    h.  The applicant’s most recent encounter, dated 03 January 2024, indicates he was 
recently admitted into a VA housing program with the intention of transferring to 
permanent housing. He is employed, actively involved in his healthcare plan, and has 
open lines of communication with his case management team. The applicant is currently 
receiving mental health services via the VA and is diagnosed with Depressive Disorder, 
mild.
    i.  Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral 
Health Advisor that there is insufficient evidence the applicant had a behavioral health 
condition during military service that mitigates his discharge. 
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 was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbances in emotion 
and conduct. 

    (3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. 
The applicant’s VA medical record indicates the applicant engaged in polysubstance 
abuse that eventually resulted in a substance induced mood disorder. However, 
substance abuse in the absence of another behavioral health condition does not provide 
mitigation for misconduct. While the applicant was later diagnosed with Depressive 
Disorder, after decades of polysubstance abuse, there is no nexus between his military 
service and depression. The record appears to indicate his mild depressive symptoms 
likely resulted from his extensive history of polysubstance abuse, since it is a risk factor 
for mental disorder symptoms. Regardless of the diagnosis, gaining unauthorized 
access of an office and stealing a computer and zip drive would not be mitigated by his 
BH condition since depression does not impact 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 the applicant had a 
behavioral health condition during military service that mitigates his discharge. The 
Board under liberation consideration found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigation 
to overcome the misconduct.  The applicant provided no post service achievements or 
character letters of support to attest to his honorable conduct for the Board to weigh as 
clemency. 
2.  The Board determined, based on the preponderance of evidence the narrative 
reason was not in error or unjust. Furthermore, the applicant was credited with 8 months 
and 23 days of active and discharged for misconduct and was provided an under 
honorable conditions (General) characterization of service.  The Board agreed that the 
applicant's discharge characterization is warranted as he did not meet the standards of 
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel to receive an 
Honorable discharge. As such, 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 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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.


	 
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 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) set forth 
the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 established 
policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific 
categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of 
a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. Action would be taken to separate 
a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was 
impracticable or was unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable 
conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. 

	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.  

3.  Army Regulation 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) establishes the 
standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. The separation 
document provides the individual with documentary evidence of his or her military 
service. The DD Form 214 is a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous 
active duty. The DD Form 214 provides a brief, clear-cut record of active duty service at 
the time of a Soldiers release from active duty, retirement, or discharge, and it is not 
intended to have any legal effect on termination of a Soldier's service.  Chapter 2 states: 

	a.  Block 25, the separation authority, this is obtained from the regulatory directives 
authorizing the separation. 

	b.  Block 26, separation code, this is obtained from AR 635–5–1, which provides the 
corresponding SPD code for the regulatory authority and reason for separation. 

	c.  Block 28, narrative reason for separation, this is based on regulatory or other 
authority and can be checked against the cross reference in AR 635–5–1. 

4.  On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge 
Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 
(BCM/NRs) 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. 

5.  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 DRBs 
and BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their 
discharges due in whole, or in part, to:  mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; 
sexual assault; sexual harassment.  Boards were directed 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.  The guidance further describes 
evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or 
experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for that misconduct which led 
to the discharge. 

6.  On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of 
Military/Naval Records (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.  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 based on 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.  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. 

7.  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//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20230007038


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1