ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Record of Proceedings IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 August 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200009408 APPLICANT AND COUNSEL REQUESTS: The applicant and counsel requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to an honorable or general discharge, and a personal appearance before the Board via video/telephone. APPLICANT AND COUNSEL'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: . DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) . DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) . Counsel’s statement (12 pages) . Annual Diagnostic Study Update . Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) request for information . DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) . Record of Court-Martial Conviction . Non-judicial punishments (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) . General Court-Martial Order Number 161 . General Court-Martial Order Number 1089 . VA Administrative Decision Letter . Statements from ER and PE . Applicant’s statement FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), 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: a. He had a difficult time adjusting to the military lifestyle, in 1972 it was not a good time being an African American in Germany. He had to adjust to the culture, being out of the country and being away from his close-knit family. My adjustment issues and anxiety occurred shortly after entering the military. He felt sadness, anxiety, and nervousness regarding his difficulty adjusting to military life and missing his family. He felt isolated and lonely at times. This emotional roller coaster made him feel anxious. Despite his feelings he worked hard to be respectful to his commander and uphold he military responsibility. he had difficulty trusting and interacting with other Soldiers as he had to suppress his feelings to work alongside his military brothers. b. He was never offered counseling or any other mental health services. He never sought any mental health services as he did not know that these were available to servicemen. He dealt with his feelings the best he could even though he was anxious, sad, experiencing a feeling of emptiness, anxiety, and nervousness regarding his difficulty adjusting to military life. After being charged and put in prison, he was affected mentally and physiologically for a crime he did not do. He recalled being severally affected as he spent the majority of his time in isolation and was socially isolated from the population. The stress of being incarcerated increased his psychological anxiety and the feelings of uncertainty as well as his mood, negative thinking and his ability to interact well with others. c. Before military services he had not been incarcerated nor had he been in trouble with the law. After the military he had some difficulty with getting employment. He was depressed and dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He realized that he needed medication after being in the hospital two times (Westbrook and “MCV”). He had feelings of paranoia, he remembers setting tires on fire that were related to the gas truck he was driving that he thought were too dangerous to be on the road, which landed him in the hospital. The second time, he had an obsession with Mad Cow disease, and he was trying to burn the disease by setting a fire to the family farm. The ambulance came and took him to Southside Community Hospital and he was transferred to MCV. d. He is currently on Medicaid and they are paying for his mental health care, however, he feels that he could get better mental health care if he could receive VA health benefits/ compensation. Medicare will not cover 100 percent (%) of his treatment cost. He needs these VA benefits to get high quality psychiatric treatment as a paranoid schizophrenic through VA hospitals. If he is not able to obtain care through the VA, he would end up being in a permanent long-term psychiatric hospital, because his immediate family would not be able to take care of him. His current symptoms are schizophrenia paranoid type, PTSD, obsessive compulsive disorder behavior (OCD), diabetes, neuropathy, anxiety, depression and hypertension. His symptoms impact his inability to make sound decisions, not able to follow through on tasks, restlessness, difficulty sleeping, nightmares and unable to be mentally stable for long periods of time. He is even afraid to drive at night. 3. Counsel states: a. The applicant served his country in the U.S. Army from 1 December 1972 to 8 March 1976, as a Ground Surveillance Radar Crewman. He served with good conduct from 1972 through 1973, receiving three promotions during that period. Then, in 1974, while posted in Germany, he began exhibiting the early symptoms of what would later be diagnosed as schizoaffective disorder. Unacknowledged by the Army, his declining mental condition manifested in behaviors that were misunderstood as ordinary disciplinary issues rather than the onset of a serious illness. Rather than receiving due consideration or treatment, the applicant was punished for his behaviors, discredited, and targeted for additional charges, leading to a demoralizing imprisonment and an Other Than Honorable discharge. b. As set forth in further detail below, the applicant seeks clemency from the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR/the “Board”) and respectfully requests that the Board upgrade the characterization of his military discharge from Other Than Honorable to Honorable or General, Under Honorable Conditions (1) on grounds that he suffered from a mental condition during military service that mitigates his discharge and (2) on the basis of equity and justice based on the totality of his life and circumstances. Before joining the military, the applicant was a healthy eighteen-year-old adolescent. He was a law-abiding, peaceful, well-rounded individual who grew up in a close-knit family and had many friends who adored him. He attended church regularly and enjoyed singing and playing in a band with his friends. c. As an African-American man, he also had to deal with the added stress and indignity of systemic racism, manifest in constant bullying, debasement, maltreatment, and inequity. In Germany, he was increasingly overwhelmed by feelings of isolation, loneliness, sadness, anxiousness, and nervousness and had difficulty trusting and interacting with other Soldiers. Eventually, the applicant’s symptoms manifested in uncharacteristic, minor misconduct that led to disciplinary action by his command. Initially, he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for failing to report to his company’s monitoring post barracks in February 1974 and for an unauthorized absence in April 1974. d. In September of 1974, while visiting a night club off base, the applicant was accused by German police of possessing Mandrax, a commercial brand of methaqualone that was primarily used to treat symptoms of anxiety and insomnia, but was banned under Army regulations at the time. The applicant vehemently denied the charges against him (to both the German authorities and his command), but his command presumed his guilt and charged him with a serious offense punishable with a lengthy prison sentence. Isolated from his family and friends, the applicant, a young black man from Virginia who had never before faced such serious charges and was facing almost certain conviction based solely on the word of the German police pled guilty to a violation of Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful general regulation), UCMJ on the advice of his defense counsel. e. After his discharge in March 1976, the applicant returned to Virginia. His family noticed changes in his behavior that had not been present when he enlisted. He engaged in limited conversation, avoided eye contact with family and friends, and appeared to be more of an introvert. Additionally, he exhibited frequent feelings of helplessness, a loss of identity, and a loss of purpose. Although he was eventually able to find work as a truck driver, his mental health continued to deteriorate and he suffered two psychotic episodes that required hospitalization and treatment. He was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, a type of bipolar, in 1990. f. The applicant’s discharge should be upgraded because he suffered from a mental condition during military service that mitigates his discharge. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense issued clarifying guidance to boards for correction of military/naval records (BCM/NRs), including the Board, for considering requests by veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions (the “Kurta Memo”). The Kurta Memo, which expands upon guidance issued by the Secretary of Defense in 2014 (the “Hagel Memo”), directs BCM/NRs to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for relief “when the application for relief is based in whole or part on matters relating to mental health conditions. Liberal consideration includes acknowledging that mental health conditions inherently affect one’s behaviors and choices in ways that cause service members to think and behave differently than might otherwise be expected, and that mental health conditions were far less understood years ago than they are today and are often undiagnosed for years. g. During his military service, at the time of the conduct leading to his discharge, the applicant suffered from early signs of schizoaffective disorder. His mental condition, not taken into consideration at the time of his court-martial, mitigates the conduct on which his Other Than Honorable discharge was based. The applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade should be granted on equity and justice grounds based on the totality of his life and circumstances. On 25 July 2018, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense issued additional guidance to BCM/NRs determining whether relief is warranted on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency (the “Wilke Memo”). h. In April 1972, the year that the applicant entered active duty, a Task Force commissioned by then Secretary of Defense ML to study the administration of military justice in the Armed Forces concluded that “[r]acial and ethnic discrimination exist in both its intentional and systemic manifestations in the military,” and in particular, that “there is a clearly discernible disparity in disciplinary rates between black and white servicemen. According to the Task Force, black servicemen were more likely to receive Article 15, NJP, and were much more likely to be subject to disciplinary or judicial action at the end of a confinement period than were their white counterparts and received significantly longer sentences to confinement at hard labor than white servicemen. A random sample of service members imprisoned at one of the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks revealed that 47.3% of the prisoners were black enlisted men at a time when black enlisted men comprised just 13.1% of the Armed Forces. i. The Task Force’s report of racism in the military discharge process was so clear and egregious that in 1973, just a year before the applicant received his Other Than Honorable discharge, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) concluded that the Task Force’s finding that “black service members received a lower proportion of honorable discharges and a higher proportion of general and undesirable discharges than whites of similar aptitude and education” meant that an employer could not “require proof of an honorable discharge from the armed services” absent a showing of business necessity. The EEOC reasoned that the effect of the employer’s policy would be “that a substantially disproportionate percentage of those persons rejected for lack of an honorable discharge will be Black,” and therefore that the employer’s honorable discharge policy violated Title VII. j. In conclusion, the applicant received an Other Than Honorable discharge under circumstances that merit a second look. The stress of a foreign assignment and systemic racism triggered behaviors that were uncharacteristic in him. Under modern standards, his mental health condition would have been a relevant mitigating factor in determining the characterization of his discharge. The applicant respectfully prays for clemency and requests that the Board address the years of justice and benefits denied to him by upgrading his discharge to honorable or (in the alternative) general, under honorable conditions. 4. On 1 December 1972, with his parent’s consent, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 2 years. He completed training requirements and was awarded his military occupational specialty. He was assigned to his unit in Germany on or about 14 April 1973. 5. On 13 February 1974, the applicant received NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of pay and extra duty for 2 days. He did not appeal. 6. On 29 April 1974, he received NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for absenting himself from his unit during the period of 12 to 13 April 1974. His punishment consisted of reduction to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of pay, extra duty for 7 days, and restriction for 7 days. He did not appeal. 7. On 26 September 1974, the applicant was arraigned and tried by a General Court-Martial. He pleaded guilty and was found guilty of the specification and charge of violating a lawful general regulation, by having in his possession 100 tablets of a controlled substance (a methaqualone based drug, Mandrax). He was sentenced to be reduced to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $217 pay per month for 3 months, to be confined at hard labor for 6 months, and to be discharged from the U.S. Army with a “bad conduct discharge”. 8. On 1 November 1974, the findings and sentence were approved by the general court-martial convening authority and directed, except for the BCD, to be executed. The record of trial was forwarded to the U.S. Army Court of Military Review for appellate review. 9. On 15 January 1975, the Army and Air Force Clemency and Parole Board considered the applicant’s case and disapproved his restoration to duty. The Board also announced his sentence to confinement in excess of five (5) months was remitted. 10. On 21 January 1975, the applicant requested to be placed on excess leave. He was restored to duty and placed in an excess leave status effective 23 January 1975, until the appellate review and findings were complete. 11. On 10 September 1975, the applicant was notified that, regulations required a final discharge physical be accomplished within six (6) months prior to discharge. Due to the fact that there was not a current physical in his records, it would be necessary for him to obtain one. He was directed and authorized to report to the nearest military medical facility within three (3) working days of receipt of the letter and obtain a final discharge physical in compliance with chapter 3, Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). He was informed to notify Headquarters, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, of his appointment date for the physical using the enclosed pre-addressed envelope. He was also informed to report to the Armed Forces Examination Station nearest his address while on excess leave and they would make arrangements for the discharge physical. The completed physical should have been returned by the examining facility to the headquarters discharge section within five (5) days of completion. 12. On 17 October 1975, the U.S. Court of Military Appeals denied the applicant’s petition for a grant of review. 13. General Court-Martial Order Number 1089, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, KS on 24 October 1975, shows the sentence had been affirmed, and after completion of all required post-trial and appellate reviews, the convening authority ordered the applicant's bad conduct discharge executed. 14. On 6 January 1976, the Prisoner Personnel Officer notified the applicant that, the appellate review process had been completed and his punitive discharge was ordered executed. He was also notified that in order to process his discharge it would be necessary for him to have a complete medical examination. Execution of his discharge would be held in abeyance until he received a discharge physical. He was directed and authorized to report to the nearest military medical facility within three (3) working days of receipt of this letter and obtain a final discharge physical in compliance with chapter 3, AR 40-501. The applicant had not complied with the instructions in the letter dated 10 September 1975. He was directed to proceed to make arrangements with the Armed Forces Entry Examination Station (AFEES) in Richmond, Virginia where he took his original physical when enlisting. 15. The applicant responded to the Prisoner Personnel Officer and stated that he replied to the last letter of September 1975. He also stated that he took a separation physical at Fort Lee, Virginia, at the discharge section and they were supposed to send all the physical papers from Fort Lee, VA. 16. The applicant was discharged on 8 March 1976. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), with separation program designator (SPD) JJD, by reason of court-martial sentence. His DD Form 214 further shows his service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions and he was issued a DD Form 259A (Bad Conduct Discharge Certificate). He was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal and Marksmanship Qualification Badge with M-16 rifle bar. 17. Counsel provided a statement from ER and PE (the applicant’s sisters), wherein they stated, in pertinent part: a. Before joining the military, the applicant was a healthy 18 year-old adolescent. He had no emotional problems, attended church regularly, and had many friends. He was an ideal son and brother. One of the stories that captures what he was like before the military was when; he and a few of his childhood friends had a band. Where they took much pride in playing instruments and singing. During this time, he was well-rounded, emotionally stabled, and had many friends who adored him. Further, during this time, there were no emotional instabilities in his behavior. His family observed his strong ability, as being stable and well-balanced. Also, we do not recall any negative emotions at home or at school, with his friends. b. While the applicant was in the military, his behavior changed. He became more withdrawn and, particularly when he was stationed overseas in Germany, his calls and letters home diminished in frequency. In Germany, he was bullied and mistreated because of his color, and when German officials accused him of possessing drugs, his command didn’t take him at his word when he honestly said he didn’t do it. He felt like he was being judged on the basis of his color, not the content of his character, and sent to prison for a crime he didn’t commit. He felt like no one believed him or was willing to support him. His court-martial and imprisonment lowered his self-esteem and outlook. While in prison he became more and more isolated and barely communicated with his family. c. After prison, he returned home. He was a different person than the brother she grew up with, distrustful of others and quick to become angry. The applicant had limited conversation, no eye contact with family and friends and appeared to be more of an introvert. Additionally, he exhibited frequent feelings of helplessness. They could see that his experience in prison and the military had taken its toll on him. He was severely affected by the events that occurred in the military and prison. Since his return, he continues to have a long history of paranoia and misinterprets what is being said by others. For example, his sister Edith often gets phone calls from him asking her to stop talking about him on her job. These phone calls are interpreted as paranoia on his part. These types of behaviors have caused him to be more isolated with people and activities that appears to remind him of being in the military. d. His anxiety caused him to become obsessive about being cautious with driving. The applicant also talked about other motorists watching and following him while he was making deliveries. He was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and with medication and treatment he has done reasonably well. Most recently he was working as a long haul driver for the U.S. Postal Service. However, he’s getting older (now in his 60’s) and can’t drive long distances anymore. He’s recently requested short-term disability and applied for social security. Medicaid covers some expenses, but not all. Getting support from the Veterans Administration helped him have the access to better psychiatric therapy and medication for his diagnosis of schizophrenia, PTSD, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder behavior (OCD), Diabetes, and Hypertension. e. As for his discharge from the military as “Other Than Honorable Conditions”, this upgrade would impact his life by affording him the appropriate healthcare that he rightfully deserved. The reinstatement of his discharge would improve his self-esteem and outlook on life. 18. Counsel also provided the documents described above in the record of proceedings and listed under the applicant and counsel's supporting documents considered by the board. The documents have been provided and considered by the Board and Army Review Boards Agency medical staff. 19. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant and counsel must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant's record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. 20. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the ABCMR is not empowered to set aside a conviction. Rather, it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy or instance of leniency to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. 21. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense (Honorable Mr. Hagel) 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 UOTHC 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. The memorandum also contains guidance that states: a. Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. b. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Corrections Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 22. 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; traumatic brain injury (TBI); sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Boards are 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 misconduct that led to the discharge. 23. In regards to the applicant's request for a personal appearance, AR 15-185 (ABCMR), states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board; however, the Board or the Director of ABCMR may authorize a personal appearance. 24. The ABCMR is not authorized to grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans' benefits; however, in reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, service record, and statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. 25. 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. A review of his service record indicates he completed a separation physical in September 1975. The applicant asserts he had PTSD as a result of his conviction and confinement during his military service. Counsel. He reported to psychiatric hospitalizations after his discharge from the military. He reports current diagnoses of PTSD, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Schizophrenia, paranoid type, Depression, and Anxiety. The medical documentation provided indicates Schizoaffective Disorder in 1990 and Schizophrenia diagnosis in 2012. The applicant’s counsel states the applicant worked as a truck driver and was diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder, bipolar type in 1990. An annual diagnostic study update confirms the 1990 diagnosis and a diagnosis of Schizophrenia, paranoid type effective 25 Mar 2012. A review of JLV indicates the applicant has not been evaluated or treated in the VA system. He does not have a service connected disability rating. On 28 Feb 2013, the VA determined that his discharge status is a bar to VA benefits. In accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Secretary of Defense Liberal Guidance Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017, Clarifying Guidance there is documentation to support a behavioral health diagnosis at the time of his discharge. There is no evidence that the applicant did not meet retention standards at the time of his discharge. Schizoaffective Disorder (diagnosed 14 years after his discharge) is not a mitigating factor for misconduct that resulted in his court martial conviction and discharge. The applicant’s psychiatric condition appears to have worsened between 1990 and 2012 resulting in a new diagnosis of Schizophrenia in 2012 but is not considered as a mitigating factor as he did not meet diagnostic criteria for that diagnosis until 36 years after his discharge. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 2. The Board carefully considered the applicants request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, the applicant's record of service, the frequency and nature of the applicant's misconduct and the reason for separation. The applicant provided insufficient evidence of post-service achievements in support of a clemency determination. Additionally, Board members agreed with the reviewing official's assessment that there is no evidence that the applicant did not meet retention standards at the time of his discharge and/or that Schizoaffective Disorder (diagnosed 14 years after his discharge) is not a mitigating factor for misconduct that resulted in his court martial conviction and discharge. 3. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted based upon guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING XX: XX: XX: 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. 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. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the ABCMR is not empowered to set aside a conviction. Court-Martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. Rather it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. It provides: 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. c. A Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge only pursuant to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. 3. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense (Honorable Mr. Hagel) 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 UOTHC 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. The memorandum also contains guidance that states: a. Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. b. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Corrections Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 4. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to 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; traumatic brain injury (TBI); sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Boards are 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 misconduct that led to the discharge. 5. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records on 25 July 2018, 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//