ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
IN THE CASE OF:   
BOARD DATE: 8 February 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210010053 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: 
. Upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge to general under honorable conditions 
. Permission to appear personally before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
. 
DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) 

. 
Confirmation of Treatment letter 


FACTS: 
1. 
The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records: Claims Incident Thereto). 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 her chain of command abused its authority by threatening and chastising her when she was on suicide watch; the applicant affirms she incurred post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to a sexual assault, and the resultant PTSD, coupled with her unit's harassment, impaired her ability to serve. In support of her claim, the applicant provides a letter from a licensed professional counselor, which states the applicant's diagnoses are "41.1 GAD, 33.2 MDD without psychosis, and 43.12 PTSD." The counselor adds, "[Applicant] was the victim of a sexual assault at the age of 18, for which she never received mental health treatment. Her encounters and other traumatic events while serving in the Army exasperated (sic) the triggers for her previous trauma. [Applicant] suffered ridicule from her leadership after an attempted suicide." 

3. 
The applicant's service records show: 


a. 
On 4 February 2000, the applicant enlisted into Michigan Army National Guard (MIARNG) for 8 years; her rank/grade at enlistment was private first class (PFC)/E-3. On 6 March 2000, she entered initial active for training (IADT); on 13 July 2000, following the completion of initial entry training (IET) and the award of military occupational specialty (MOS) 92G (Food Service Specialist), orders released her from active duty with an uncharacterized character of service and returned her to her MIARNG unit. On 21 December 2001, after a transfer to the Illinois ARNG (ILARNG), the ILARNG separated the applicant with a general discharge, due to unsatisfactory participation; the ILARNG then transferred the applicant to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training) to complete her military service obligation. 

b. 
On 13 March 2001, the applicant asked to enlist into the Regular Army. Upon approval, the applicant enlisted for 3 years; her DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United States) shows she entered active duty, on 26 April 2001, and, at her enlistment, she held the rank of PFC. Orders immediately assigned her to Fort Sill, OK, and she arrived at her unit, on 4 May 2001. 

c. 
On 18 July 2002, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for stealing $350 from a fellow Soldier; her punishment included reduction to private (PV2)/E-2. On 9 December 2002, the applicant accepted NJP for violating a Regional Correctional Facility's SOP (standing operating procedure) by fraternizing with a prisoner; one of the punishments was reduction to private (PV1)/E-1. 

d. 
On 23 December 2002, the applicant contacted the military police (MP) to report that someone had slashed her car's tires. 


(1) 
On arrival at the scene, MP Investigator (MPI) M__ noticed another vehicle also had its tires slashed; as MPs took the applicant's statement, MPI M__ learned the second car belonged to PFC H__. Upon questioning, PFC H__ stated he did not know who had damaged his tires, but he suspected his ex-girlfriend (the applicant) because they had had a verbal altercation the weekend prior and the applicant had hit PFC H__'s car with a broomstick (the broomstick did not damage PFC H__'s car). 

(2) 
MPI M__ warned the applicant of her rights, she waived her rights, and she admitted she had slashed PFC H__'s tires; she explained she had been trying to contact PFC H__, but he was ignoring her, so she went to her vehicle, retrieved a knife, and proceeded to cut PFC H__'s tires. PFC H__ later came to the applicant's room and said he was "impressed with her work on his car, but that her's wasn't safe either"; when the applicant checked on her car, she discovered someone had cut her tires. She tried 

once again to speak with PFC H__, but he ignored her; the applicant then called the MPs to report the tire damage for insurance purposes. 

(3) 
The MPs subsequently warned PFC H__ of his rights, and he admitted he had slashed the applicant's tires. The MPs charged both the applicant and PFC H__ with damaging private property. 

e. 
On 7 February 2003, after reviewing her bank account, PV2 J__ found someone had been making internet purchases using her debit card; she suspected her roommate (the applicant). 

(1) 
The MPs warned the applicant of her rights, she waived her rights, and she admitted that she saw a VISA statement on her roommate's bed the month before and copied the account number on a piece of scrap paper. Not long afterward, she tried to enroll at a university, but the online application would not accept her debit card, so she decided to use her roommate's card number instead; later, she used her roommate's debit card to buy her friend two pairs of children's shoes.  

(2) 
On 10 February 2003, PV2 J__ reported to the MPs that she had discovered two additional unauthorized payments made with her debit card: a payment to a jewelry store and payment of a parking violation fine. In a follow-up interview with the applicant, she admitted to using her roommate's debit card for the aforementioned payments. 

f. 
On 26 March 2003, the applicant's unit preferred court-martial charges against her for the following UCMJ violations: 

. 
Article 109 (Damaging Private Property Valued at Less than $500) – for willfully and wrongfully puncturing a fellow Soldier's tires, causing less than $500 in damage 

. 
Article 121 (Larceny of Private Property Valued at Less than $500) – for stealing $252.83 in U.S. currency from a fellow Soldier 



g. 
On 1 April 2003, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge in-lieu of trial by court-martial under chapter 10 (Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial), Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). In her request, she stated no one had subjected her to coercion, and counsel had advised her of the implications of her request. The applicant further acknowledged she was guilty of at least one of the specifications of charges against her, and she elected not to submit statements in her own behalf. 

h. 
On 17 April 2003, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation request and directed her under other than honorable conditions discharge; the 


separation authority additionally ordered the applicant's reduction in rank to the lowest enlisted grade. On 25 April 2003, orders discharged the applicant accordingly. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows she completed 2 years, 4 months, and 8 days of her 3-year enlistment contract. Specifically, Items 12 (Record of Service) and 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) reflect the following: 
. 
Item 12a (Date Entered AD (active duty) This Period) – "2000/12/18" 

. 
Item 12b (Separation Date This Period) – "2003/04/25 

. 
Item 12c (Net Active Service This Period) – "0002/04/08" 

. 
Item 13 – National Defense Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, and Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar 


i. 
On 16 June 2006, the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), requesting a records review and upgrade to general under honorable conditions. On 30 May 2007, the ADRB voted to deny the applicant's request. However, in its review of the applicant's overall record, the ADRB pointed out item 12a was incorrect; the applicant's actual date of entry on active duty was 26 April 2001. 

j. 
On 18 August 2010, the applicant submitted a second DD Form 293 (Application for the ADRB), wherein she asked for another records review of her case. 


(1) 
The applicant argued she was no longer the same person she was while on active duty. For the past 7 1/2 years, she had been a wife and a mother; she also had bettered herself by earning an Associate's degree, and, as of the date of her application, she was working on a Bachelor of Science diploma and expected to graduate in December. After her discharge, she came to realize the manner in which you leave the military affects your ability to obtain a civilian job. Should the ADRB grant her request, she hoped to reenlist into the Army with a renewed appreciation for what the military had to offer; she additionally hoped, with her college degree, she might be able to become a warrant or commissioned officer. She affirmed she understood the mistakes she made had an impact on her family, and she asked the ADRB for the chance to right her wrongs. With her request, the applicant provided a copy of her Associate's Degree diploma, her college enrollment verification letter, and two letters of support. 

(2) 
On 14 October 2010, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) administratively closed the applicant's request, noting the ADRB did not hear requests for reconsideration; however, ARBA advised the applicant she could still request a personal appearance before the ADRB or she could apply for relief to the ABCMR. 


4. 
AR 15-185 (ABCMR), states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board; however, the request for a hearing may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of ABCMR. 

5. 
The applicant requests the upgrade of her character of service and argues her chain of command abused its authority by threatening and chastising her when she was on suicide watch. She had incurred PTSD after a sexual assault, and the PTSD, coupled with the unit's harassment, impaired her ability to serve. 


a. During the applicant's era of service, Soldiers charged with UCMJ violations, for which a punitive discharge was an authorized maximum punishment, could request separation under chapter 10, AR 635-200. Such requests were voluntary and available in-lieu of trial by court-martial. The Manual for Courts-Martial, then in effect, showed a punitive discharge was one of the available maximum punishments for violations of Article 109 and Article 121. 
b. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition, her arguments and assertions, and her service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency guidance. 
6. The available evidence confirms, on 6 March 2000, and while a member of the MIARNG, the applicant entered IADT; on 13 July 2000, after successful completion of IET and the award of MOS 92G, she returned to her ARNG unit for duty. 
a. 
At the time the applicant completed IET, the governing regulation stated separating Soldiers in an entry-level status were required to receive an uncharacterized character of service. However, the current separation regulation states Reserve Component (RC) Soldiers will receive an honorable character of service (unless directed otherwise by the separation approval authority) after their successful completion of IET, following the award of an MOS, and upon their release to an RC unit for duty. 

b. 
The evidence of record confirms the applicant fulfilled the requirements of the current regulation, and, were she undergoing IET today, she would receive an honorable character of service. Based on current regulatory guidance, it would be appropriate to revise her character of service to honorable, in the interest of equity. 


7. MEDICAL REVIEW: 
The applicant is applying to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge to general under honorable conditions. 
a. 
The applicant states her chain of command abused its authority by threatening and chastising her when she was on suicide watch; the applicant affirms she incurred post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to a sexual assault, and the resultant PTSD, coupled with her unit's harassment, impaired her ability to serve. 

b. 
The ABCMR Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor was asked to review this case. Documentation reviewed includes: 

. 
DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) 

. 
Confirmation of Treatment letter 


c. VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) was reviewed. 

d. 
A review of the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) & Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS) were reviewed. 

e. 
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 4 February 2000 and was discharged on 25 April 2003, under other than honorable conditions discharge. 

f. 
On 18 July 2002, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for stealing $350 from a fellow Soldier 

g. 
On 9 December 2002, the applicant accepted NJP for violating a Regional Correctional Facility's SOP (standing operating procedure) by fraternizing with a prisoner. 

h. 
On 23 December 2002, the applicant contacted the military police (MP) to report that someone had slashed her car's tires. 

(1) 
On arrival at the scene, MP Investigator (MPI) M__ noticed another vehicle also had its tires slashed; as MPs took the applicant's statement, MPI M__ learned the second car belonged to PFC H__. Upon questioning, PFC H__ stated he did not know who had damaged his tires, but he suspected his ex-girlfriend (the applicant) because they had had a verbal altercation the weekend prior and the applicant had hit PFC H__'s car with a broomstick (the broomstick did not damage PFC H__'s car). 

(2) 
MPI M__ warned the applicant of her rights, she waived her rights, and she admitted she had slashed PFC H__'s tires; she explained she had been trying to contact PFC H__, but he was ignoring her, so she went to her vehicle, retrieved a knife, and proceeded to cut PFC H__'s tires. PFC H__ later came to the applicant's room and said he was "impressed with her work on his car, but that her's wasn't safe either"; when the applicant checked on her car, she discovered someone had cut her tires. She tried once again to speak with PFC H__, but he ignored her; the applicant then called the MPs to report the tire damage for insurance purposes. 

(3) 
The MPs subsequently warned PFC H__ of his rights, and he admitted he had slashed the applicant's tires. The MPs charged both the applicant and PFC H__ with damaging private property. 



i. 
On 7 February 2003, after reviewing her bank account, PV2 J__ found someone had been making internet purchases using her debit card; she suspected her roommate (the applicant). 

(1) 
The MPs warned the applicant of her rights, she waived her rights, and she admitted that she saw a VISA statement on her roommate's bed the month before and copied the account number on a piece of scrap paper. Not long afterward, she tried to enroll at a university, but the online application would not accept her debit card, so she decided to use her roommate's card number instead; later, she used her roommate's debit card to buy her friend two pairs of children's shoes. 

(2) 
On 10 February 2003, PV2 J__ reported to the MPs that she had discovered two additional unauthorized payments made with her debit card: a payment to a jewelry store and payment of a parking violation fine. In a follow-up interview with the applicant, she admitted to using her roommate's debit card for the aforementioned payments. 



j. 
On 26 March 2003, the applicant's unit preferred court-martial charges against her for the following UCMJ violations: 

(1) 
Article 109 (Damaging Private Property Valued at Less than $500) – for willfully and wrongfully puncturing a fellow Soldier's tires, causing less than $500 in damage. 

(2) 
Article 121 (Larceny of Private Property Valued at Less than $500) – for stealing $252.83 in U.S. currency from a fellow Soldier. 



k. 
On 1 April 2003, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge in-lieu of trial by court-martial under chapter 10. 

l. 
On 16 June 2006, the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), requesting a records review and upgrade to general under honorable conditions. On 30 May 2007, the ADRB voted to deny the applicant's request. 

m. 
On 18 August 2010, the applicant submitted a second DD Form 293 (Application for the ADRB), wherein she asked for another records review of her case. The applicant argued she was no longer the same person she was while on active duty. For the past 7 1/2 years, she had been a wife and a mother; she also had bettered herself by earning an Associate's degree, and, as of the date of her application, she was working on a Bachelor of Science diploma and expected to graduate in December. 

n. 
On 14 October 2010, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) administratively closed the applicant's request, noting the ADRB did not hear requests for reconsideration; however, ARBA advised the applicant she could still request a personal appearance before the ADRB or she could apply for relief to the ABCMR. 

o. 
In support of her claim, the applicant provides a letter (Counseling Texans to Empowerment-Confirmation of Treatment) from a licensed professional counselor, dated 6 APR 2021, which states the applicant's diagnoses are "41.1 GAD, 33.2 MDD without psychosis, and 43.12 PTSD." The counselor adds, "[Applicant] was the victim of a sexual assault at the age of 18, for which she never received mental health treatment. Her encounters and other traumatic events while serving in the Army exasperated (sic) the triggers for her previous trauma. [Applicant] suffered ridicule from her leadership after an attempted suicide." 

p. 
AHLTA contain BH diagnoses of Depression with anxiety and a BH condition of Marital problem. All BH encounters occurred in 2015, after she was discharged from the military. She was seen as the spouse of military personnel. JLV does not have any additional BH diagnoses. The applicant does not have a service connection. 


q. It is clear from the applicant’s submitted documentation that her reported sexual 
assault occurred at the age of 18. The applicant enlisted in the Army at approximately 
19.5years of age. Therefore, her sexual assault occurred before entering the military. There is no evidence that it was exacerbated by her military experience. 
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 even though the applicant has a diagnosis of PTSD and other BH issues, there is no evidence that they are service connected and are therefore not mitigating for her misconduct. Even if the applicant had a service connection for PTSD/MST, GAD, MDD her misconduct of fraternization, stealing (unauthorized use of a credit card) and damage to property are not mitigated as these behaviors are not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD. The applicant met retention standards at the time of discharge. The applicant does not have a service connection. 
s. Kurta Questions 
(1) 
Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate a discharge? (a) Yes. Civilian provider diagnosed the applicant with PTSD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). 

(2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? 

(a) 
Yes. Civilian provider diagnosed the applicant with PTSD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). 

(3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 

(a) 
No. 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 even though the applicant 


has a diagnosis of PTSD and other BH issues, there is no evidence that they are service connected and are therefore not mitigating for her misconduct. Even if the applicant had a service connection for PTSD/MST, GAD, MDD her misconduct of fraternization, stealing (unauthorized use of a credit card) and damage to property are not mitigated as these behaviors are not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD. 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was warranted. 
a. 
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. 

b. 
The Board carefully considered the applicants request, supporting documents, evidence in the records and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, her record of service, the frequency and nature of her misconduct, the reason for separation and whether to apply clemency. The Board considered the medical records and the review and conclusions of the advising official, noting the medical advisory opinion finding that even if the applicant had a service connection for PTSD/MST, GAD, MDD, her misconduct of fraternization, stealing (unauthorized use of a credit card) and damage to property are not mitigated as these behaviors are not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD. The Board considered the applicant’s statement to the ADRB regarding her post-service conduct. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents and based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that relief was warranted, and voted to upgrade her character of service to general, under honorable conditions as a matter of clemency. 


BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
XX: XX: XX: GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION 
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 
In addition to the correction addressed in Administrative Note(s) below, the Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant's DD Form 214 ending on 25 April 2003 with a character of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions." 

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. 
ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): 
1. AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, stated the DD Form 214 was a summary of the Soldier's most recent term of continuous active duty and was to provide a brief, clear-cut record of the Soldier's service. The regulation directed DD Form 214 preparers to refer to source documents available in the Soldier's military personnel file. Per paragraph 2-4 (Completing the DD Form 214): 
a. Item 12 listed the Soldier's record of service. 
. 
Item 12a showed the beginning date of the Soldier's continuous period of active duty 

. 
Item 12b listed the Soldier's separation date 

. 
Item 12c was the amount of active duty service completed during the period of the report, computed by subtracting item 12a from 12b 

b. 
Item 13 was to list awards and decorations for all periods of service. 


2. 
AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards), currently in effect, states and executive orders authorized the award of the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal for members of the Armed Forces who participate in or served in support of Global War on Terrorism operations from 11 September 2001 to a date yet to be determined. 

3. 
The date listed in item 12a of the applicant's DD Form 214 does not align with the date on her DD Form 4; this, in turn, makes the entry in item 12c wrong. In addition, the applicant is eligible for the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. As such, correct her DD Form 214, ending 25 April 2003, as follows: 


a. Delete the current entries in items 12a and 12c, and replace them with the following: 
. Item 12a – "2001/04/26" 
. Item 12c – "0002/00/00" 
b. Add the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal to item 13. 
REFERENCES: 
1. 
Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 

2. 
AR 635-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for enlisted administrative separations. 


a. 
Paragraph 3-7b (General Discharge) stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, separation authorities issued the general discharge to Soldiers whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 

b. 
Paragraph 3-9 (Uncharacterized Separations) stated the regulation defined a separation as entry-level, requiring an uncharacterized character of service, when commanders initiated separation processing while the Soldier is in entry-level status. (For ARNG and USAR Soldiers, entry-level status began upon enlistment, and terminated on the completion of one continuous 180-day period of active duty). 

c. 
Paragraph 4-2 (Discharge or Release from Active Duty upon Termination of Enlistment, and Other Periods of Active Duty or Active Duty for Training) stated, ARNG and USAR Solders who successfully completed IADT were to be out-processed and returned to their respective RC units. Separation authorities were to issue Soldiers in an entry-level status an uncharacterized character of service. 

d. 
Chapter 10 permitted Soldiers to request discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial when they had committed an offense or offenses that, under the Manual for Courts-Martial, included a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge as a punishment. The Soldier could submit such a request at any time after court-martial charges were preferred and up to the point that the convening authority approved the sentence. Once the separation request was approved, an under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally furnished, but the discharge authority could direct a general discharge, when warranted. 


3. 
AR 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for enlisted promotions and reductions. In chapter 7, it stated Soldiers approved for an under other than honorable conditions discharge were to be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. 

4. 
The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Appendix 12 (Maximum Punishment Chart), in effect at the time, showed a punitive discharge was an available maximum punishment for the following UCMJ violations: 

. 
Article 109 (Damaging Private Property Valued at Less than $500) 

. 
Article 121 (Larceny of Private Property Valued at Less than $500) 



5. 
On 25 August 2017, the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance to DRBs and BCM/NRs pertaining to requests by Veterans for the modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to mental health conditions, including PTSD; traumatic brain injury; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Boards were told to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application was based, in whole or in part, on the aforementioned conditions or experiences. The guidance further described acceptable evidence sources and criteria, and required Boards to evaluate the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for the misconduct that led to the discharge. 

6. 
On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief 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. 

7. 
AR 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents), currently in effect, prescribes the transition processing of military personnel. It states, when an RC Soldier successfully completes IADT, the character of service is Honorable, unless directed otherwise by the separation approval authority. 

8. 
AR 15-185 (ABCMR), states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board; however, the request for a hearing may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of ABCMR. 


//NOTHING FOLLOWS//