IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 March 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200002098 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, reconsideration of the previous Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decisions as promulgated in Docket Numbers AR20150008669 and AR20170015105 on 25 October 2016 and 15 April 2019, respectively. Specifically, he requests his narrative reason be changed to medical and his characterization of service be changed from "under honorable conditions (General)" to "Honorable." APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * ABCMR Docket Number AR20150008669 with auxiliary documents * ABCMR Docket Number AR20170015105 with auxiliary documents * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 28 September 2009, with the official date of 22 November 2016 * Applicant's letter to the Board, dated 14 September 2019 * Numerous Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) documents * Army Review Boards Agency Medical Advisory Opinion for AR20170015105 * Numerous medical documents including a Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois "Patient Discharge Instructions" * Orders D-07-818997 issued by U.S. Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, Missouri, dated 22 July 2008 FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's cases by the ABCMR in Docket Numbers AR20150008669 and AR20170015105 on 25 October 2016 and 15 April 2019, respectively. The applicant provides a new argument that was not previously considered. He also noted some of the evidence the previous Board reviewed was erroneous and incorrect; however, he does not specify what these errors were. Therefore, this new argument warrants consideration by the Board at this time. 2. The applicant states he suffers from Paranoid Schizophrenia, a debilitating disease, which hindered his reality at the time of his last enlistment and has affected his life since then. It was just in its infancy during his second enlistment. He went through all types of delusions during his enlistment that caused him to go absent without leave (AWOL) because he believed that he had special orders, that he was in the CIA, and all other types of things. He notes looking back, that this was a very depressing time in his life having to deal with all the delusions one after another. The delusions just kept flowing and he couldn't stop them and didn't know what to do. He asks the Board to look at the medical facts and give leniency and liberal consideration in his case. He honestly was trying to be the best Soldier he could be at that time with his medical condition. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Hawaii Army National Guard (HIARNG) on 24 April 2003 for military occupational specialty (MOS) 91W (Health Care Specialist). Orders 3119-07, issued by the Military Entrance Processing Station, Pearl Harbor, HI, dated 29 April 2003, with the consent of the Governor of Hawaii, ordered him to initial active duty for training (IADT) with a report date of 26 May 2003 at Fort Knox, Kentucky. 4. A DD Form 220 (Active Duty Report) shows he completed basic training at Fort Knox from 22 May 2003 through 30 July 2003, a period of 68 days. 5. The applicant was honorably released from active duty training, discharged from the Reserve of the Army and returned to the HIARNG on 17 August 2004 from Fort Sam Houston, Texas. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he completed 1 month and 10 days of net active service and the reason for separation was "erroneous entry." However, the complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available for review in his records. 6. An NGB Form 22 (National Guard Bureau - Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows he was discharged from the HIARNG on 1 September 2004 after completing 1 year, 4 months, and 8 months of net active service due to erroneous enlistment or extension. It further shows he was given an uncharacterized character of service. 7. The applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 17 September 2007 in the grade of private first class (PFC)/E-3. Subsequently, he was released from active duty training due to the completion of required active service on 17 January 2008. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he completed 3 months and 7 days of net active service and was awarded MOS 92S (Shower/Laundry and Clothing Specialist). 8. A DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History) and DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination), both dated 9 June 2007, shows the applicant wore contact lenses, had no health issues, and was qualified for military service. 9. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 July 2008 in the rank of PFC. 10. A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) shows his duty status changed from "Present for Duty" to "AWOL" effective 27 September 2008. Another DA Form 4187 shows his duty status changed from "AWOL" to "Dropped from Roll" effective 27 October 2008. 11. A DD Form 616 (Report of Return of Absentee) shows he was apprehended by civilian authorities and returned to military control as a deserter on 2 June 2009. 12. The applicant provides a Standard Form 600, dated 23 June 2009, which indicated he was referred by his command for a mental status evaluation at the Ireland Army Community Hospital, Mental Health Clinic, Fort Knox by a licensed medical professional. The form shows: * his listed problems/conditions were insomnia, adjustment disorder with anxiety, therapy for drug and alcohol abuse/dependence, and adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions * he states no intent to commit suicide and denied hallucinations at the time * his thought content revealed no impairment, or paranoid ideations, or delusions * he disagreed with his pending Chapter 10 proceedings; verbalized he wants to be medically discharged or remain in the Army * he was given no psychiatric diagnosis * he was deemed cleared to participate in any administrative proceedings * total face-to-face/floor time was noted as 60 minutes 13. A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 1 July 2009 shows court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from his organization from on or about 27 September 2008 through on or about 2 June 2009. 14. The applicant consulted with counsel on 1 July 2009 and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by the imposition of a punitive discharge, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of a request for discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. a. Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge in accordance Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. b. In doing so, the applicant acknowledged that the charges preferred against him under the UCMJ authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He further acknowledged: * he had not been subjected to coercion with respect to his request for discharge * he had been advised of the implications that were attached to it * by submitting the request, he was acknowledging he was guilty of the charge(s) against him or of (a) lesser included offense(s) therein contained which also authorized imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge * he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA * he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits and he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws * he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an under other than honorable conditions discharge * he was advised he could submit any statements he desired in his own behalf; however, he elected not to submit any statements 15. In a memorandum, dated 31 August 2009, the Personnel Control Facility Commander recommended approval of the applicant's request. He noted there did not appear to be any reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was mentally defective, deranged, or abnormal at present or at the time of the misconduct. He further recommended he receive an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service discharge. 16. The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by courts-martial on 17 September 2009. He directed the applicant be given an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service and be reduced to the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-1. 17. The applicant was discharged on 28 September 2009. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions. He was credited with completing 5 months and 26 days of net active service this period. Additionally, he had lost time from 27 September 2008 through 2 June 2009, a period of 8 months and 7 days and his rank/grade was PV1/E-1. 18. The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 17 September 2010 for an upgrade of his characterization of service to honorable and narrative reason change to medical because he suffered from schizophrenia paranoia, which rendered him mentally incompetent. The ADRB determined he was properly and equitably discharged and denied his request. Subsequently, he requested a personal appearance on 7 November 2011 and the ADRB again denied his request for a change in his character and reason for discharge. 19. The applicant applied to the ABCMR in 2015 (Docket Number AR20150008669) requesting an upgrade of his characterization of service to honorable and narrative reason change to medical because of his behavior health issues. a. The Board was rendered an advisory opinion from the Office of The Surgeon General (OTSG) based on the applicant's contention of behavior health issues that effected his discharge. The OTSG opinion noted: * an Army psychologist diagnosed him with delusional disorder possibly due to substance use and referred him to the substance abuse program in August 2008 * he was hospitalized for and diagnosed with psychosis in July 2009 * a VA decision noted he was found mentally unsound at the time of his AWOL incident based on inpatient records from Northwestern Medical Center for the period from 18 November 2008 to 2 December 2008, which indicated a diagnosis of schizophrenia * other VA documents noted diagnoses of anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and had six hospitalizations for homicidal and suicidal ideation in the past * the severity of his subsequent symptoms and his need for continued supportive services suggests that it is probable this his discharge was the direct result of a behavior health condition b. The Board determined the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief on 25 October 2016. Therefore, the Board upgraded his characterization of service to under honorable conditions (General) and his rank/grade to PV2/E-2. The Board denied his request to upgrade his characterization of service to "Honorable" and the narrative reason for his separation to medical. c. The applicant's DD Form 214 was reissued on 22 November 2016 correcting his characterization to under honorable conditions (General) and showing his rank/grade as PV2/E-2. 20. The applicant once again applied to the ABCMR in 2017 (Docket Number AR20170015105) requesting an upgrade of his under honorable conditions (General) characterization of service to honorable. a. The Board was rendered an advisory opinion from the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Clinical Psychiatrist to determine if his medical condition(s) should have been considered for a medical separation processing. The Clinical Psychologist opinion noted: * he was seen by behavioral health professionals during his USAR enlistment complaining of worsening anxiety * he was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety and placed on medication * during his Regular Army enlistment he was diagnosed with delusional disorder and admitted to the psychiatric unit at Martin Army Community Hospital and discharged in August 2008; he went AWOL in September 2008 * during his period of AWOL evidence shows he continued to be psychotic with multiple psychiatric hospitalizations * the applicant's has a psychiatric condition which mitigated his misconduct that lead to his under other than honorable conditions discharge as well as his narrative reason * his record indicates he should be referred to the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) (at the time known as the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES)) for consideration of a medical disability/retirement b. The Board determined the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief on 15 April 2019. Therefore, the Board upgraded his characterization of service to under honorable conditions (General). The Board denied his request to upgrade his characterization of service to "Honorable." The Board did not address the advisory opinion's advice regarding the possibility the applicant should have been referred to the IDES for consideration of a medical disability/retirement. c. The applicant's DD Form 214 was reissued on 10 January 2017 correcting his characterization to under honorable conditions (General) and showing his rank/grade as PV2/E-2. d. It is unknown why this Board's record of proceedings did not mention the previous applicant's petition promulgated in Docket Number AR20150008669, wherein, the applicant's original characterization of service was already upgraded to an under honorable conditions (General) on 25 October 2016. 21. The applicant provides: a. A letter to the Board, dated 14 September 2019 addressing the VA decision that his discharge was being considered as honorable due to his being "insane" during his period of AWOL. He also states that the VA considers him to be 100% (percent) total and permanently disabled with commissary and MWR privileges. He provides numerous VA documents that show he is 100% disabled and his medical conditions including the diagnosis schizophrenia paranoid type with anxiety. b. A medical document titled "Patient Discharge Instructions" from Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago that shows he was admitted on 18 November 2008 and discharged on 11 December 2008 with a diagnosis of schizophrenia paranoid. c. A copy of an email correspondence from his Trail Defense Counsel, Fort Knox Trial Defense Service, to officials at the VA. It states he saw the applicant in June 2009, prior to his separation from the Army. He remembered the applicant displayed symptoms indicative of mental health illness and he requested his command send him back for additional mental health evaluation. His mental health condition was reported to have occurred while he was on active duty. d. A letter from his treating psychiatrist, dated 19 September 2011 that states: (1) The applicant had been a patient in his care since 15 October 2010, where he regularly saw him for treatment of paranoid schizophrenia. He had been compliant with his prescribed treatment regimen and while he has been improving on appropriate antipsychotic medication, the applicant still exhibited significant residual psychosis due to his illness. (2) The applicant completed numerous psychological evaluations and was treated at Northwestern Memorial Hospital as a psychiatric inpatient for 21 days from November to December 2008. He believes the Government gave him LSD during his military training which resulted in his psychiatric condition and believes they followed him after being AWOL, which led to his hospitalization. It is reasonable to conclude his persecutory delusions prohibited him from understanding his beliefs were illogical. While he was technically AWOL, in reality he was suffering a severe psychosis and acting strictly out of self-preservation. In light of the above, he requests the applicant’s discharge be upgraded to honorable. e. Orders D-07-818997, issued by U.S. Army Human Resources Command on 22 July 2008 that shows he was honorably discharged from the USAR effective 16 July 2008. 22. The law allows the VA to award compensation for disabilities that were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, any disability rating action by the VA does not demonstrate an error or injustice on the Army's part. Operating under different laws and their own policies, the VA does not have the authority or the responsibility for determining medical unfitness for military service; only the Army can make that determination. The VA may award ratings because of a medical condition related to service (service-connected) that affects the individual's civilian employability. 23. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. 24. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army PDES and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. 25. The applicant provided a new argument and evidence that the Board should consider in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 26. Based on the applicant's contention(s) the Army Review Board Agency medical staff provides a written review of the applicant's medical records, outlined in the "MEDICAL REVIEW" section of this Record of Proceedings. MEDICAL REVIEW: 1. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting discharge upgrade contending that the misconduct leading to his Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge was due to Schizophrenia he developed, or that escalated, while on active duty. 2. The Agency psychologist was asked by the ABCMR to review this request. Documentation reviewed includes the applicant’s completed DD149 and supporting documentation and his military separation packet. The VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) was also reviewed. The military electronic medical record (AHLTA) and civilian medical documentation were reviewed as well. No hard copy military medical records were provided for review. 3. Review of the applicant’s military documentation indicates that he enlisted in the Army National Guard on 24 Apr 2003 and received an Uncharacterized discharge on 01 Sep 2004. He enlisted in the Army Reserve on 17 Sep 2007 and subsequently in the Regular Army on 16 Jul 2008. A Charge Sheet indicated he was absent without leave (AWOL) from 27 Sep 2008 - 02 Jun 2009 when he was arrested by the civilian police in Miami, Florida. He submitted a Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Courts-Martial on 01 Jul 2009. He received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge on 29 Sep 2009 which was later upgraded to an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge by the ABCMR on 22 Nov 2016. 4. In the Supporting Documentation, a treatment note from Northwest Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, dated 18 Nov 2008, diagnosed him with “Schizophrenia, Paranoid” with a referral for follow-up with Behavioral Health Hospital, Moon Lake Blvd., Hoffman Estates, IL. 5. The military electronic medical record (AHLTA). A behavioral health treatment note, Fort Benning, GA, dated 05 Aug 2008, noted “problems with previous cadre…lied to him about his ability to be a ranger…trust issues now with the Army.” The note also indicated, “reports that he was given a ‘red pill’ which he believes may have been LSD by his cadre in 2003…may have been brainwashed.” He was diagnosed with “Delusional Disorder of Unknown Etiology.” Another Psychiatry Note, dated 23 Jul 2009, indicated “D/C from VA 22 Jul 09…admitted 2 weeks for Psychosis, experiencing paranoid delusions treated with Risperdal.” 6. The VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) did indicate a service connected disability of 70% with Psychosis, Disorganized Schizophrenia 70% and Tinnitus 10%. The Problem List includes Alcohol Use Unspecified with Other Alcohol Induced Disorder (26 Mar 2020), Paranoid Schizophrenia (09 Nov 2015), Bipolar Disorder Unspecified (06 Oct 2015), Delusional Disorder of Unknown Etiology (17 Nov 2013) and Psychosis (29 Sep 2009). 7. Based on the available information and in accordance with the Liberal Consideration guidance, it is the opinion of the Agency psychologist that the applicant has a mitigating Behavioral Health condition, Schizophrenia. As there is an association between Schizophrenia and avoidant behavior along with perceptual impairments, there is a nexus between these symptoms and a prolonged absence from his unit. Chronological review of his military career indicates a dramatic change in the applicant’s motivation, temperament, and level of instability occurred during his time in the Army. Such a radical change in behavior is consistent with the behavioral changes seen in soldiers who develop or have worsening symptoms of Schizophrenia, particularly with paranoid and delusional thinking, while in the Army. An HD/secretarial authority level upgrade is recommended. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was / was not warranted. 2. After reviewing the application, supporting documents, the Agency psychologist’s advisory, and given that he has a previous upgrade, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, to include his previous upgrade, there is insufficient evidence to grant 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: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, to include the DoD guidance on liberal consideration when reviewing discharge upgrade requests, the Board determined relief was not warranted. 2. 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): Although the applicant's official military personnel file (OMPF) contains only the corrected DD Form 214 with the date of 10 January 2017 in item 22a (Official Authorized to Sign), the ARBA's Case Management Division should review all records and databases to ensure only one corrected DD Form 214 exists. If two corrected copies exist then the first corrected copy should be retained and the second should be voided. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency is responsible for administering the Army physical disability evaluation system and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in chapter 61 and in accordance with DOD Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). a. Soldiers are referred to the disability system when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, as evidenced in an MEB; when they receive a permanent medical profile rating of 3 or 4 in any factor and are referred by an MOS Medical Retention Board; and/or they are command-referred for a fitness-for-duty medical examination. b. The disability evaluation assessment process involves two distinct stages: the MEB and PEB. The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member's injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his/her ability to return to full duty based on the job specialty designation of the branch of service. A PEB is an administrative body possessing the authority to determine whether or not a service member is fit for duty. A designation of "unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. Service members who are determined to be unfit for duty due to disability either are separated from the military or are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service. Individuals who are "separated" receive a one-time severance payment, while veterans who retire based upon disability receive monthly military retired pay and have access to all other benefits afforded to military retirees. c. The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. 2. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent. 3. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating of less than 30 percent. 4. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment, retention, and separation. Chapter 3 provides the various medical conditions and physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military service and which fall below the standards required for the individuals. 5. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. It provides that an MEB is convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status. A decision is made as to the Soldier's medical qualifications for retention based on the criteria in Army Regulation 40-501. Disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and who can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service. a. Paragraph 2-1 provides that the mere presence of impairment does not of itself justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the member reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade, or rating. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically retired or separated. b. Paragraph 2-2b(1) provides that when a member is being processed for separation for reasons other than physical disability (e.g., retirement, resignation, reduction in force, relief from active duty, administrative separation, discharge, etc.), his or her continued performance of duty (until he or she is referred to the PDES for evaluation for separation for reasons indicated above) creates a presumption that the member is fit for duty. Except for a member who was previously found unfit and retained in a limited assignment duty status in accordance with chapter 6 of this regulation, such a member should not be referred to the PDES unless his or her physical defects raise substantial doubt that he or she is fit to continue to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. c. Paragraph 2-2b(2) provides that when a member is being processed for separation for reasons other than physical disability, the presumption of fitness may be overcome if the evidence establishes that the member, in fact, was physically unable to adequately perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating even though he or she was improperly retained in that office, grade, rank, or rating for a period of time and/or acute, grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition that occurred immediately prior to or coincidentally with the member's separation for reasons other than physical disability rendered him or her unfit for further duty. d. Paragraph 4-10 provides that MEBs are convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status. A decision is made as to the Soldier's medical qualification for retention based on criteria in Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3. If the MEB determines the Soldier does not meet retention standards, the board will recommend referral of the Soldier to a PEB. e. Paragraph 4-12 provides that each case is first considered by an informal PEB. Informal procedures reduce the overall time required to process a case through the disability evaluation system. An informal board must ensure that each case considered is complete and correct. All evidence in the case file must be closely examined and additional evidence obtained, if required. f. The regulation states that after the Soldier has been processed through the PDES and a PEB has made a determination that the Soldier is qualified for disability retirement but for the fact that his or her disability is determined not to be of a permanent nature and stable can be placed on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL). The TDRL is used in the nature of a "pending list." It provides a safeguard for the Government against permanently retiring a Soldier who can later fully recover, or nearly recover, from the disability causing him or her to be unfit. Conversely, the TDRL safeguards the Soldier from being permanently retired with a condition that may reasonably be expected to develop into a more serious permanent disability. 6. Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. The VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. 7. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. An honorable discharge is given when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance. 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. c. Chapter 10, in effect at the time, provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses under the UCMJ, for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred. Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. An under other than honorable conditions discharge would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. 8. The Secretary of Defense directed, on 3 September 2014, that the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) 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. 9. The acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided clarifying guidance on 25 August 2017, which expanded the 2014 Secretary of Defense memorandum, that directed the BCM/NRs and DRBs to give liberal consideration to veterans looking to upgrade their less-than-honorable discharges by expanding review of discharges involving diagnosed, undiagnosed, or misdiagnosed mental health conditions, including PTSD; traumatic brain injury; or who reported sexual assault or sexual harassment. 10. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance on 25 July 2018, to Military DRBs and BCM/NRs regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. 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) AR20200002098 10 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1