ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
IN THE CASE OF:  BOARD DATE: 1 December 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190012223 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his previous request for upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
• 
DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) 

• 
Letter from M. (M.D.) 

• 
Self-authored letter 

• 
Letter from J. (M.D.) 

• 
Self-authored letter, 1 October 1992 • DD Form 214, 25 June 1973 

• 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) letter 

• 
Bachelor of Science Certificate 


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 AC83-00948 on 24 August 1983. 

2. 
The applicant stated he was mentally ill and should not be held accountable for what he said or did. He was never interviewed by a psychiatrist. It is not his fault his officers could not recognize schizophrenia. He has been sick all of his adult life. He has been under a psychiatrist care since 1977 and has not been in trouble since. 


a. He is trying to get benefits from the Army due to his mental illness. He was in trouble all the time due to his illness. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity for 2nd degree murder of a family member. Since 1977 since he started taking psych medication his behavior has improved. He obtained a Bachelor of Psychology from Central Methodist College. He worked as a case manager until the stress forced him to 
resign. Since he became disabled he has volunteered to take vets to their doctor’s 
appointments for a residential care facility for over 14 years. 
b. 
In a letter from 1 October 1992, he stated in a previous case that was denied due to lack of evidence. He sent information to the wrong agency that held the information and did not forward it. Before joining the Army, he never had any paranoid episodes. During basic training he was laying on his bunk one night when a group of trainees threw a blanket over his head and pulled down his underpants and played with his behind. He heard one of them say “Let’s rape this punk!” It was on that occasion he truly became afraid. 

c. 
After this occasion he always had fears that someone would rape him. He started going absent without leave (AWOL). He wanted to go home where he would feel safe, but he could not get home. He then turned to drugs because all of the tough guys used drugs and he thought this might keep him from being raped. This did not work as he continued to be afraid. 

d. 
He could do his job and jump from planes however, he could not get this thought out of his head. When he got a chance he went AWOL. He returned to Fort Leonardwood, MO and knew in his psychotic state that he was no good for the Army. The best thing was too asked for an undesirable discharge. 

e. 
For a year or two after his discharge he ended up killing his grandfather as the record states, and was committed to the state hospital system in MO. Under their control he obtained a degree and a one-year program of computers and lives successfully with his wife. He is not capable of holding down a job due to his illness but he is coping better now. He would like a medical reason discharge under honorable conditions. 


3. The applicant provided: 
• 
Letter from M. (M.D.) stating the applicant currently carries a diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type appearing to have occurred during service (Entire letter is available in documents) 

• 
Self-authored letter discussed above 

• 
Letter from J. (M.D.) stating the applicant is being treated for schizoaffective disorder and has been under his care since 2001 (Entire letter is available in documents) 

• 
Self-authored letter, 1 October 1992 discussed above 

• 
DD Form 214, showing the applicant was discharged for the good of the service on 25 June 1973 

• 
DVA letter discussing the time for the applicant to been seen for an appointment 

• 
Bachelor of Science Certificate showing he received his degree from Central Methodist College on 20 July 2002 


4. A review of the applicant’s service records shows: 
a. 
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 January 1972. He held military occupational specialty 71B (Clerk Typist). 

b. 
He was honorably discharged on 23 October 1972, for immediate reenlistment. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he completed 8 months and 29 days of service that period. He had 5 days of lost time. He was awarded or authorized: 

. 
National Defense Service Medal 

. 
Parachutist Badge 



c. 
He reenlisted on 24 October 1972 for a period of three years. He was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, MO. 

d. 
DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows court-martial charges were preferred on 25 April 1973 for the charge of AWOL and its specification of being absent without leave (AWOL from 16 February 1973 to on or about 19 April 1973. 

e. 
On 1 May 1973, after the applicant had the opportunity to consult with appointed counsel and under the provisions (UP) of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) chapter 10, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service (in lieu of trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge). He understood: 

. 
He may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate 

. 
He could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veteran’s Administration, and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law 

. 
He may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an undesirable discharge 



f. 
On 5 May 1973, his immediate and intermediate commanders recommended disapproval of his voluntary discharge for the good of the service UP of Chapter 10, AR 635-200. His commanders stated the applicant had 12 months’ good time. He had a record of productive service before going AWOL. With the proper rehabilitation this man may again become an effective Soldier; therefore, he should be retained in service. 

g. 
On 20 June 1973, the separation authority approved his request for discharge UP of chapter 10, AR 635-200. He directed he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He also directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade of private. 

h. 
Accordingly, he was discharged on 25 June 1973 under conditions other than honorable UP of AR 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service. His DD Form 214, for this period of service shows he completed 1 year, 2 months, and 15 days of service that period. He had 80 days of lost time from 24 December 1972 – 10 January 1973 and 16 February – 18 April 1973. 

i. 
On 9 October 1974, a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) was prepared changing the following: 

. 
Item 15 (Reenlistment Code): RE-3, 3B & 3C 

. 
Delete: Table 2-6 AR 601-210 Applies 

. 
Add: Chapter 4 AR 600-200 and Table 2-5 AR 601-210 apply 



j. 
On 22 February 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board, after careful consideration of his military records and all other available evidence, has determined that he was properly discharged. Accordingly, his request for a change in the type and nature of his discharge was denied. 

k. 
On 24 August 1983, in ABCMR Docket Number AC 83-00948, the Board considered his application but determined that after reviewing the application and all supporting documents, that relief was not warranted. The Board denied his request. 

. 
On 15 April 1998, in ABCMR Docket Number AC 70-01630, it was determined that the new information and new contentions submitted in his request did not warrant a reversal of the Board's earlier decision 

. 
On 30 May 2007, the ABCMR returned his request for reconsideration without action 

. 
On 24 March 2008, the ABCMR returned his request for reconsideration without action 




5. 
By regulation, AR 635-200, chapter 10 provides 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. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 

6. 
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. 

7. 
MEDICAL REVIEW: 


The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s military service records. The Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) & Health Artifacts Image Solutions (HAIMS) was not in use at the time of his service. His hardcopy military medical records were not available for review. A review of his service record indicates his senior leaders recommended retention. They noted a record of productive service and recommended rehabilitation versus discharge. There is no indication an inability to function within his MOS. He completed a separation physical and met retention standards. A letter dated 5 Jun 2006 indicates the applicant has been treated for Schizoaffective Disorder since November 2001. A doctor’s letter dated 10 Jan 2019 indicates the applicant has been under his care for Schizoaffective Disorder since 12 Dec 2014. The doctor states he appears to have had the same diagnosis while in the service but this opinion is based on self-report not medical documentation. A review of JLV indicates the applicant has received medical care in the VA since 2006. On 24 Jul 2006, he completed an initial evaluation. He reported working for the state after his discharge from service in 1973 and in 2006 was working as a driver in exchange for room and board. He reported being in the process of divorcing his 4th wife and was filing for bankruptcy. He reported being on disability since 2004. He reported a history of childhood sexual abuse. He reported hitting his grandfather with a baseball bat in 1977 because he thought his grandfather was trying to kill him. He stated he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. There were no court records to review. He acknowledged a history of domestic abuse in his relationships. He reported a history of alcohol abuse but had been sober since 1995. He was diagnosed with Schizophrenia (by history) and Polysubstance Abuse (by history). He reported being stable on current medication (Loxapine). On 20 Jun 2007, his diagnosis was changed to Schizoaffective Disorder, in remission. His most recent appointment was 30 Aug 2021. He continues to work full time as a driver and is stable on medications. He does not have a service connected disability rating. In accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Secretary of Defense Liberal Guidance Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017, Clarifying Guidance there is no documentation to support a behavioral health diagnosis at the time of his discharge. Per his medical records and supporting documentation, he was gainfully employed after his discharge and not diagnosed with any psychiatric illnesses until 4 years after his discharge. The applicant has received medical care in the VA system since 2006 and does not have service connected disability for any of his medical conditions. The applicant was evaluated and met retention standards at the time of his discharge thus medical retirement/disability is not warranted. 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, 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, 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 advisory, the Board concurred with the advising official finding the applicant was evaluated and met retention standards at the time of his discharge thus medical retirement/disability is not warranted. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors for the misconduct to weigh a clemency determination. The applicant provided his post service accomplishments, however based on the preponderance of evidence, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to amend the previous Boards’ decision. Therefore, the Board denied relief. 
BOARD VOTE: 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
: : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 
: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
XX XXX XX 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 AC83-00948 on 24 August 1983. 
X 
CHAIRPERSON 
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. AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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. 
a. 
 Paragraph 3-7a(1) 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. Only the honorable characterization may be awarded a member upon completion of his or her period of enlistment or period for which called or ordered to active duty or active duty for training, or where required under specific reasons for separation, unless an entry level status separation (uncharacterized) is warranted. 

b. 
 Paragraph 3-7b(1) 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. 
 Paragraph 3-7b(2) states a characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the member's separation specifically allows such characterization. It will not be issued to members upon separation at expiration of their period of enlistment, military service obligation, or period for which called or ordered to active duty. 


2. 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. 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//