IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 October 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200008099 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable or medical discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Applicant Letter * Certificate of Live Birth * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) (Marine) * Notification of Entry into Active Military Service * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) (Army) * DD Form 4 (Enlistment Contract) * Health Records * Disability Benefits Questionnaire (Dr. * Report of Proceedings of Board of Officers FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United States 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 tried to tell people that he had already been in the Marines and was medically discharged on 9 December 1971 for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He described his period of initial training and subsequent AWOL: * He was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps on 22 April 1970 but injured his knee on the obstacle course * He later received word from his mother that he was required to sign up for Selective Service in * He reported to the recruiter office but was detained and was coerced into enlisting by Army recruiters who did not believe he had already served in the Marine Corps * He was sent to Fort Polk for basic training and labeled a draft dodger, and he was mistreated on the way there * At Fort Polk they harassed him and kicked his bad leg and kept him awake at night so he went AWOL * He had flashbacks and dreams and could not sleep but took odd jobs and was eventually charged with burglary and sent to prison where he received treatment for his knee and sleep problems * He was in prison until 1974 3. The applicant provides: a. A self-authored letter, dated 21 July 2019, that states he received an honorable discharge on 22 April 1970 from the Marine Corps after serving 51 days. He was hurt in basic training on the obstacle course and was transferred to Casualty Company, Hospital Battalion to await discharge. He was 17 years old from. He was told he would have to go down to the Selective Service Board to sign up for the draft even though he had already been in the military so he went to the draft board and showed them his DD Form 214 and he went to. His mother received a letter for him from the Selective Service Board. He presented his Selective Service Card at the Army Induction Center and he was detained as an assumed draft dodger. He told them he had been in the Marines. They said they had to go by the date on his Selective Service card. He asked them to talk to the Marines. They asked if he would go ahead and take the physical and he purposely told them he had bad nerves, which he does and that he was discharged from the Marines due to his knees. (1) He was told he could join the delayed entry program and delay entry up to a year. That way he could go home and get his DD Form 214. The next thing he knew he was headed to Fort Polk, LA and was being slapped around and mistreated because he was assumed to be a draft dodger. They harassed disturbed his sleep. They kicked his bad leg and he would have to go to the infirmary on several occasions. He told the doctors at the infirmary he hurt his knee in the Marines. The guys in the barracks told him about ortho and that they would chop off his leg and he would not have to go to war. They told him to wait until they get on the firing range, things could happen to him. (2) Time was running out before the range so he saw the woods and left everything behind. He felt he was going to die if he stayed. He went AWOL to his father's house and his father was ex-military and said he could not stay there because the military police would be on their way. On 31 May 1972, he was charged with burglary and put in county jail. He had symptoms of DT (Delirium tremens) and was misdiagnosed as having epileptic seizures and he was put on Dilantin and Phenobarbital which helped with the withdrawal from alcohol. A military lawyer told him he was going to get him back into the military. He told him about the mix up with the Selective Service card and his birth date. He did not want to go back to the military for fear they would kill him. He had nightmares and his nerves were shot. Things go so bad he was better off dead and then one night he started to cut on his arm several times. (3) He was seen by a psychiatrist, Dr. once a week and was prescribed medicines, Mellaril which helped with nerves, a sleeping medicine that helped with the nightmares, Thorazine and Mysolene tablets for seizures and Ativan. He talked with a Dr. and he showed him a bone fragment that was floating around his kneecap since he was in the Marine Corps. Dr. took the piece of bone out and put him on light duty which made him have to move from the main unit at the prison. He stayed in the hospital unit until April 1974 at which time he believes he was paroled. b. A Certificate of Live Birth, shows his date of birth c. A cancelled card shows the date of birth as d. A DD Form 214, showing he was honorably discharged from the Marine Corp on 22 April 1970, under 6012.1e Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, 219-convenience of the government. He completed 1 month and 20 days of active service and he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal. e. Notification of Entry Into Active Military Service Card, shows his selective service number, date of entry into active Service, 9 December 1971 and his date of birth, f. Selective service classification questionnaire shows it was mailed 5 August 1970 and not date returned for the applicant. g. Disability Benefits Questionnaire (Dr. dated 22 October 2019, shows the applicant meets the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD at this time. Dr. opinion is that said PTSD is at least as likely as not (50% or greater probability) directly related to his treatment encountered at the hands of selective service workers, fellow Soldiers, and superiors when drafted into the Army after having already received an honorable discharge from the Marine Corps. The applicant was not insane at the time he went AWOL or at any other time he was in service. His behavior was directly related to his fear which was caused by his treatment, intimidation, and harassment. His cutting and suicide attempts go with the overwhelming despair felt by not being believed regarding his Marine service. Any psychosis and DT's were most likely related to self-medication with alcohol for his physical pain and managed with medication and abstinence. 4. Review of the applicant's service records shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 December 1971 for 3 years. (His DD Form 4 Enlistment Contract - Armed Forces of the United States) shows no prior service in item 49. b. His enlistment physical, Report of Medical Examination, dated 8 December 1971, reflects pes planus secondary, and that he was qualified for Regular Army. In his Report of Medical History, dated 8 December 1971, he answered yes to having chronic or frequent colds, broken bones, and nervous trouble of any sort. c. He was assigned to Fort Polk, LA for basic combat training. His Physical Profile, dated 24 January 1972 shows he suspended from all training pending Medical Board. d. On 4 February 1972, he went AWOL and on 3 March 1972, he was dropped from the rolls. He was last seen at the hospital, he was believed to be wearing civilian clothes. e. On 31 May 1972, he was arrested and confined by civil authorities. The Criminal Court Record vs the applicant, dated 25 September 1972, shows multiple counts of breaking and entering, three grand larcenies, and two petit larcenies. He plead guilty to breaking and entering, grand larceny, breaking and entering, grand larceny, breaking and entering, and petit larceny, and was sentenced to 5 years in the state prison. The sentence was ordered executed. He would serve 5 years. f. On 13 December 1972, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate a separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-206 (Personnel Separations-Discharge-Misconduct (Fraudulent Entry, Conviction by Civil Court, AWOL, Desertion)) by reason of having been convicted by civil court for burglary, second degree. The commander recommended an undesirable discharge, and advised the applicant that he had the right to present his case before a board of officers, submit statements in his own behalf, be represented by counsel, and/or to waive rights in writing. g. The applicant signed a Statement of Intent to Appeal his Civil Conviction on 20 December 1972. He also acknowledged receipt of the notification of separation and made the following elections: * he elected consideration of his case by a board of officers * he requested appointment of military counsel to represent him before a board of officers * he submitted a statement in his own behalf h. In his statement, the applicant stated an undesirable discharge was pending on his behalf. His understanding of the said crimes which he supposedly committed are beyond his memory. He was on base prescription drugs when he went AWOL and he has been on drugs ever since. He was in the process of arranging probation, suspended sentence, or restitution to get released form civil authorities to go back into the Army. He requested appointment of military counsel to represent him before a board of officers. His intention was to clarify some facts in order to get reinstated back into military service and serve his country, which he felt would be easier to do in the Army than in prison. He requested witnesses on his behalf, Dr. (Psychiatric Clinic). He felt that if the Army would take him back and get him off drugs, he would be more than willing to make amends and stick with an Army career. Also, the public and the Army wouldn't support him, but rather he could serve it. h. On 14 March 1973, the applicant's unit commander initiated separation actions against him under the provisions of AR 635-206 by reason of his civilian conviction. Elimination was recommended because he had been convicted of breaking and entry and grand larceny. He was sentenced to 5 years' confinement. The commander recommended an undesirable discharge and his chain of command concurred. The commander certified the applicant had not received any form of non-judicial punishment during his career with the Army. He was listed AWOL and DFR form 4 February 1972 through 8 November 1972; all of which had gone unpunished. He also certified the applicant was unavailable to take his separation physical and mental evaluation examination due to civil confinement j. On 11 April 1973, he was notified to appear before a board of officers on 1 May 1973 due to civilian conviction on 25 September 1972 in. The probable witnesses were Dr. The applicant acknowledged receipt on 20 April 1973 and request the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate act as counsel in his behalf. j. On 18 May 1973, a Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services letter stated the applicant refused to release information regarding his psychiatric report. The applicant's parents were separated and he did not live with either of them. He was not provided with the emotional support and affection normally contributed to natural parents. The general consensus of opinion is that he was suffering from an emotional disturbance which unfortunately stems form hatred of his father. He apparently had a history of epilepsy and seems to display psychological disorders, which cumulated in the slashing of his own wrist while in the County Jail. He attempted suicide by taking an overdose of pills which he had hoarded. He is inadequate personality plagued with feelings of inadequacy and inferiority and at that time lacked any directive goals. k. On 23 May 1973, a board of officers convened at Fort Gordon, GA. The board found/recommended: (1) While being tried and convicted in a civil court in, the applicant plead guilty to three charges of Breaking and Entering, two charges of Grand Larceny, and one charge of Petit Larceny, and was sentenced by the State to hard labor for five years. (2) In the letter that the applicant wrote and sent to the Company Commander, he stated that he understood the personnel actions which are being brought against him; i.e. 206 board action. (3) The applicant did not see fit to provide information concerning himself as requested by his counsel, and that counsel tried to get a copy of the psychiatric report and the authorities, in a written statement, indicated that the applicant refused to release this information. (4) In view of the findings, the board recommends that the applicant be discharged from the service with the issuance of an undesirable discharge UP AR 635-206 for conviction by a civil court. l. On 17 August 1973, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendation and ordered the applicant be discharged from the service with the issuance of an undesirable discharge UP AR 635-206 for conviction by a civil court. m. Special Orders Number 230, dated 23 August 1973, Headquarters, US Army School/Training Center, Fort Gordon, GA, reassigned him to the transfer point for separation processing and discharged him, effective 27 August 1973 for misconduct and furnished him an under other than honorable conditions discharge certificate. n. The applicant was discharged on 27 August 1973. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-206 for civil conviction, with a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions. He was assigned Separation Program Number (SPN) Code 284-civil conviction. He completed 1 month, and 17 days of active service. He had lost time from 4 February 1972 to 7 November 1972 and from 8 November 1972 through 27 August 1973. He was awarded the National Defense Service Medal. o. There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge within that board's 15-years statute of limitations. 5. By regulation, (AR 635-206) an individual discharged for conviction by civil court normally will be furnished an undesirable discharge certificate except that an honorable or general discharge certificate may be furnished if the individual being discharged has been awarded a personal decoration, or if warranted by the particular circumstances in a given case. 6. In reaching its determination, the Board should consider the applicant's petition, his service record, and his statement in accordance with the published Department of Defense guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. 7. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The applicant is applying to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable or medical discharge. b. The applicant states he tried to tell people that he had already been in the Marines and was medically discharged on 9 December 1971 for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The ABCMR Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor was asked to review this case. c. He described his period of initial training and subsequent AWOL: * He was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps on 22 April 1970 but injured his knee on the obstacle course * He later received word from his mother that he was required to sign up for Selective Service in * He reported to the recruiter office but was detained and was coerced into enlisting by Army recruiters who did not believe he had already served in the Marine Corps * He was sent to Fort Polk for basic training and labeled a draft dodger, and he was mistreated on the way there * At Fort Polk they harassed him and kicked his bad leg and kept him awake at night so he went AWOL * He had flashbacks and dreams and could not sleep but took odd jobs and was eventually charged with burglary and sent to prison where he received treatment for his knee and sleep problems * He was in prison until 1974 d. Documentation reviewed includes: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Applicant Letter * Certificate of Live Birth * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) (Marine) * Notification of Entry into Active Military Service * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) (Army) * DD Form 4 (Enlistment Contract) * Health Records * Disability Benefits Questionnaire (Dr. * Report of Proceedings of Board of Officers e. VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) was reviewed. f. A review of the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) & Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS) were not reviewed as they were not in use at the time of service. g. The ABCMR Record of Proceedings details the applicant's military service and the circumstances of the case. The ROP indicates that the applicant entered military service on 9 December 1971 and was discharged on 27 August 1973. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-206 for civil conviction, with a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions. He was assigned Separation Program Number (SPN) Code 284-civil conviction. He completed 1 month, and 17 days of active service. h. On 4 February 1972, he went AWOL and on 3 March 1972, he was dropped from the rolls. He was last seen at the hospital, he was believed to be wearing civilian clothes. i. On 31 May 1972, he was arrested and confined by civil authorities. The Criminal Court Record vs the applicant, dated 25 September 1972, shows multiple counts of breaking and entering, three grand larcenies, and two petit larcenies. He plead guilty to breaking and entering, grand larceny, breaking and entering, grand larceny, breaking and entering, and petit larceny, and was sentenced to 5 years in the state prison. The sentence was ordered executed. He would serve 5 years. j. On 13 December 1972, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate a separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-206 (Personnel Separations-Discharge-Misconduct (Fraudulent Entry, Conviction by Civil Court, AWOL, Desertion)) by reason of having been convicted by civil court for burglary, second degree. k. On 14 March 1973, the applicant's unit commander initiated separation actions against him under the provisions of AR 635-206 by reason of his civilian conviction. Elimination was recommended because he had been convicted of breaking and entry and grand larceny. He was sentenced to 5 years' confinement. l. On 18 May 1973, a Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services letter stated the applicant refused to release information regarding his psychiatric report. m. On 23 May 1973, a board of officers convened at Fort Gordon, GA. The board found/recommended: (1) While being tried and convicted in a civil court in Florida, the applicant plead guilty to three charges of Breaking and Entering, two charges of Grand Larceny, and one charge of Petit Larceny, and was sentenced by the State of Florida to hard labor for five years. (2) In the letter that the applicant wrote and sent to the Company Commander, he stated that he understood the personnel actions which are being brought against him; i.e. 206 board action. (3) The applicant did not see fit to provide information concerning himself as requested by his counsel, and that counsel tried to get a copy of the psychiatric report and the authorities, in a written statement, indicated that the applicant refused to release this information. (4) In view of the findings, the board recommends that the applicant be discharged from the service with the issuance of an undesirable discharge UP AR 635-206 for conviction by a civil court. n. On 17 August 1973, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendation and ordered the applicant be discharged from the service with the issuance of an undesirable discharge UP AR 635-206 for conviction by a civil court. o. The applicant contends that his said crimes are beyond his memory. A Disability Benefits questionnaire dated 22 OCT 2019, completed by a licensed clinical psychologist noted that while the applicant has PTSD, he is not insane and any psychosis he might have been experiencing was the result of self-medication with alcohol. The psychologist notes: (1) It is the opinion of this writer that said PTSD is at least as likely as not (50% or greater probability) directly related to his treatment encountered at the hands of selective service workers, fellow soldiers, and superiors when drafted into the Army after having already received an honorable discharge from the Marine Corps. (2) I do not feel that veteran was insane at the time he went AWOL or at any other time he was in service... Any psychosis and DTs were most likely related to self-medication with alcohol for his physical pain and managed with medication and abstinence. p. In effect, he was legally responsible for his civilian crimes of multiple counts of breaking and entering, three grand larcenies, and two petit larcenies which he was found guilty in civilian court. q. JLV contains Behavioral Health diagnoses of Major Depression, Anxiety Disorder, and Agoraphobia with Panic Disorder. He is 80% service connected, 70% for PTSD. r. After reviewing the available information and in accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Hagel Liberal Consideration Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017 Clarifying Guidance, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral Health advisor that although the applicant has a diagnosis of PTSD it is not a mitigating factor in his misconduct. The applicant met retention standards at the time of discharge. The applicant has a service connection of 80% (PTSD 70%). While PTSD is a mitigating factor for his AWOL (avoidance) it is not a mitigating factor for his civil convictions of multiple counts of breaking and entering, three grand larcenies, even with considering liberal guidance. The applicant's PTSD is not a mitigating factor for this misconduct (multiple counts of breaking and entering, three grand larcenies) as it not a part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD. Breaking and entering, larceny can be seen as a conscious and willful act, that the applicant committed over time, rather than a manifestation of a BH disorder. s. Additionally, the applicant was asking for a medical disability discharge. It is not clear whether he is asking for this for a physical medical condition or a behavioral health (BH) issue. From a BH perspective there is insufficient evidence that the applicant was unfit for service at the time of his discharge. He was Honorably discharged from the Marine Corp, indicating fitness for duty. There are no available records in iperms. t. With regards to military medical disability/retirement, the Army has a process that begins with entry into the disability evaluation system (DES). Referral to this system requires a designation of unfitness before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. In the applicant's case, there is no indication that he had a behavioral health condition while on active duty as evidenced by the lack of : 1) a permanent physical profile for physical or psychological impairment; 2) a diagnosis of a behavioral health condition that failed medical retention standards; 3) a diagnosis of a behavioral health condition that rendered the applicant unable to perform the duties required of his MOS or military grade; 4) a medical examination that warranted his entry into the disability evaluation system. u. It is important to realize that a diagnosis of a physical or mental condition post service and the subsequent award of a VA rating does not establish entitlement to medical retirement or separation from the Army. Operating under its own policies and regulations, the VA, which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining medical unfitness for military duty, awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service and affects the individual's civilian employability. The VA evaluates a member throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based on that agency's examinations and findings. v. In conclusion, after considering all the available medical documentation, it is the opinion of the Agency psychologist that there is insufficient evidence to warrant a referral of the applicant's record to IDES (Integrated Disability Evaluation System) for consideration of military medical disability/retirement. BOARD DISCUSSION: The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical advisory opinion and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, record of service, the frequency and nature of the misconduct, and the reason for separation. The Board considered the medical records and the review and conclusions of the advising official. The Board concurred with the medical advisory opinion finding insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors to overcome the misconduct. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. 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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation (AR) 635-206 (Personnel Separations-Discharge Misconduct (Fraudulent Entry, Conviction by Civil Court, and Absence Without Leave or Desertion)) this regulation, establishes policy and prescribes procedures for the elimination of enlisted personnel for misconduct by reason of fraudulent entry into the service, conviction by civil court, and absence without leave or desertion. However, elimination action will not be taken in lieu of disciplinary action solely to spare an individual who may have committed serious misconduct the harsher penalties which may be imposed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). a. Section VI (Conviction by Civil Court), prescribes procedures for processing cases of individuals who, during their current term of active military service, have been initially convicted or adjudged juvenile offenders initially convicted by civil authorities, or action taken against him which is tantamount to a finding of guilty, of an offense for which the maximum penalty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice is death or confinement in excess of 1 year. b. An individual discharged for conviction by civil court normally will be furnished an undesirable discharge certificate except that an honorable or general discharge certificate may be furnished if the individual being discharged has been awarded a personal decoration, or if warranted by the particular circumstances in a given case. 3. Regulation 635-5-1 (Personnel Separations-Separation Program Designator), (SPD) previously called Separation Program Number (SPN) is a number used in statistical accounting to represent the specific authority and reason for separation. The SPN identifies reasons for and types of separation from active duty. The SPN of "284" is the correct code to be assigned to Soldiers separating under Section VI of AR 635-206 by reason of misconduct, convicted or adjudged a juvenile offender by a civil court during current term of active military service. 4. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides information on medical fitness standards for induction, enlistment, appointment, retention, and related policies and procedures. Chapter 3 gives the various medical conditions and physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military service and which fall below the standards required. 5. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), in effect at the time, establishes the Army Disability Evaluation System 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. Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability. a. Soldiers are referred to the disability system when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3, as evidenced in a medical evaluation board (MEB); when they receive a permanent physical profile rating of "3" or "4" in any functional capacity factor and are referred by a Military Occupational Specialty 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 physical evaluation board (PEB). The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member's injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his or 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 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 are either 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 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 medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. d. Paragraph 3-2 states 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 military service. e. Paragraph 3-4 states Soldiers who sustain or aggravate physically unfitting disabilities must meet the following line-of-duty criteria to be eligible to receive retirement and/or severance pay benefits: (1) The disability must have been incurred or aggravated while the Soldier was entitled to basic pay or as the proximate cause of performing active duty or inactive duty training; (2) The disability must not have resulted from the Soldier's intentional misconduct or willful neglect and must not have been incurred during a period of unauthorized absence. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 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. 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) AR20200008099 12 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1