IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 December 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210012570 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of her DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) by: * Upgrading her characterization of service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable * Changing her narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority * Awarding her the Army Good Conduct Medal APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 * Applicant’s/Counsel’s Brief * Affidavit in Support of Petition * Letters of Appreciation x3 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 she was discharged prior to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy, which enforced the same unjust goal. She served honorably in the Women’s Army Corps (WAC) for more than 2 years before an allegation of homosexuality was levied against her. An investigation was carried out, she was questioned over several hours and was eventually discharged. Her evaluations were excellent until her discharge and she also received three separate letters of appreciation. For more than 50 years, she has been forced to live with the fact that an allegation of homosexuality robbed her of the honorable discharge she deserves. In 2011, Congress repealed DADT, and as such, a service member can no longer be separated solely based on their sexual orientation. It is an injustice that her discharge remains marred as a result of the allegation and investigator into her sexual orientation. 3. The applicant/counsel provides: a. A Brief stating the applicant was discharged on 8 November 1968, with a general discharge after an allegation of homosexual activity was levied against her. Military policy concerning sexual orientation has changed. In 2011, military policy commonly referred to as DADT was repealed, therefore, men and women are no longer subject to administrative separation based solely on legal homosexual acts, statements that he or she is homosexual or bisexual, or for marrying another individual of the same biological sex. Further, gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals may now openly join and serve in the armed forces and former service members who were discharged solely under DADT are allowed to apply for re-entry into the armed forces and must be evaluated under the same criteria as all other prior-service members seeking re-entry. Additionally, the brief states: (1) As a result of the repeal of DADT, former Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness Clifford L. Stanley issued a memorandum stating that qualifying service members who were separated under the now-defunct policy are entitled to have certain changes made to their discharge. The applicant meets the requirements under this guidance for a correction to her discharge, as her discharge was based solely on an allegation of homosexual activity. Therefore, her characterization of service should be upgraded to honorable and her narrative reason for separation should be changed to "Secretarial Authority." Finally, she should be awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal as her 2 years of service occurred during a period of war. The military’s policy regarding sexual orientation has created inequity in the applicant’s discharge. The Board should therefore grant her request. (2) Timeliness of Application - Generally, there is a 3-year statute of limitation for filing of applications, however that limitation may be excused in the interest of justice. The applicant was discharged in November 1968, many decades prior to the repeal of DADT and thus this application could not have been filed within 3 years of discharge. Further, she only discovered that she may be eligible for an upgrade due to the repeal of DADT in 2019. Therefore, this application was filed within 3 years of discovering a remedy is available, it should be considered timely. (3) Statement of Facts – The applicant entered active duty on 19 September 1966 as a member of the Women's Army Corp (WAC). She served for a period of 2 years, 1 month, and 20 days before being discharged on 8 November 1968. Throughout her service, she received a series of positive evaluations as well as three separate Letters of Appreciation. (4) On 25 April 1968, Captain (CPT) R wrote the first of two letters of appreciation concerning the applicant’s service. In this letter, she stated “[i]t is women of your caliber who has given our corps the reputation and heritage of which we are so proud. I can only say, thank you from all of us.” (5) Upon her departure from the command, CPT R wrote the applicant a second letter of appreciation in which she stated, “I wish to express my sincere appreciation for your outstanding performance of duty.” Finally, on 23 August 1968, Commanding Officer GET wrote the applicant had “continuously displayed ingenuity, enthusiasm, and sound judgment in the execution of duties and responsibilities. Her evaluation and interpretation of administrative problems had been exerted in a superior manner. Her qualities of courtesy and devotion to duty were a credit to yourself and WRAMC. During her service, she received five different conduct and efficiency ratings and the four evaluations from 1 October 1966 through 31 January 1968 were excellent ratings. Her final rating from 1 February through 21 October 1968 shows her conduct was rated unsatisfactory. While this final evaluation covered nearly 9 months of service, it is clear from the August Letter of Appreciation that for at least the first 7 months, her service remained excellent. Just prior to discharge, she was informed that a fellow WAC member had reported that she had engaged in homosexual activity and was questioned over many hours by several Army investigators regarding her alleged activity. The applicant denied the allegations as she was at the time in a relationship with a man. (6) Although the applicant makes no direct reference to homosexual activity, it is clear from her records that this is the only misconduct she was accused of that led to her discharge. In a memorandum written by Ms. S, reference is made to a report of investigation, and statements made by two other Soldiers. Diligent efforts have been made by the applicant to obtain these specific documents, but all efforts have been fruitless. Neither the National Archives and Records Administration, the Army Human Resources Office, nor the VA have been able to locate these specific documents. However, a Department of Psychiatry and Neurology Report prepared prior to discharge references specific charges of homosexuality. Therefore, between the documents that can be located, and the applicant’s own statement, it is clear the misconduct for which she was discharged is wholly related to these allegations. (7) After her discharge, the applicant moved back to Maine and remained very involved with the veteran community. She has dedicated over 18 years of her life to volunteering at her local VA Community Based Outpatient Clinic. As a part of this volunteer work, she has done everything from filing medical documents to checking patients as they arrive, helping with mail, and setting up flu shot clinics. (8) Throughout her time in service she only dated men, she did eventually meet her now wife years after her discharge and they remain happily married. (9) Legal Arguments - AAfter the repeal of DADT, the Department of Defense issued guidelines that created a standard for the correction of military records of those discharged under DADT or similar prior regulations. The applicant meets the standards laid out under this guidance to qualify for a change in her discharge paperwork. Therefore, under the terms of this guidance, the Board should change her characterization of service to honorable and narrative reason for separation to "Secretarial Authority." (10) The applicant’s original discharge was based solely on DADT or a similar policy in place prior to enactment of DADT and there were no aggravating factors in the record, such as misconduct. The Stanley Memorandum states that if an applicant meets the above standard, the ABCMR should make the above changes to the DD 214. The applicant meets the criteria necessary to merit an upgrade to her discharge in accordance with the Stanley Memorandum, based solely on homosexual conduct. (11) Since the applicant’s discharge, significant changes have been made to military policy regarding the discharge of service members for homosexual conduct. Service members are now free to engage in same-sex relationships in a manner consistent with the relationships of heterosexual service members. This change makes available a variety of behaviors to homosexual service members and thus represents a significant enhancement of rights to these service members. (12) There is substantial doubt that the applicant would have received the same discharge if current policies and procedures had been available at the time her discharge was being considered. (13) Conclusion – The ABCMR should upgrade the applicant’s characterization of service. The applicant has lived with an injustice for more than 50 years. She served her country, during a period of war, faithfully and honorably and yet because of one accusation, her meritorious service has not been accurately reflected in her discharge documents. Despite this injustice, she has continued to serve and support her fellow veterans, having volunteered with the Bangor, Maine VA Community Outpatient Clinic for over 18 years. She has always known her service to be honorable and she respectfully requests that this Board make the necessary corrections to her records to reflect the true character of her service. b. An Affidavit wherein the applicant swears that immediately prior to discharge, she was informed a fellow Soldier alleged to the commander that she had engaged in homosexual behavior. After the interrogation she was recommended for discharge at which point she spoke with a Judge Advocate General officer who advised her that he could fight the allegations, but that could result in a less than under honorable conditions discharge. Eventually she relented and agreed to the discharge [under AR 635-212]. c. Three Letters of Appreciation: (1) A Letter of Appreciation from CPT R, dated 25 April 1968, stating “I am always proud when a significant group of women receive the recognition which they so justly deserve.” “You have made each member of this command a little more aware of' the role of' the WAC at Walter Reed. It is a woman of your caliber, who has given our corps the reputation and heritage of which we are so proud. I can only say thank you, from all of us.” (2) A Letter of Appreciation from CPT R, dated 14 May 1968, stating upon my departure from this command “I wish to express my sincere appreciation for your outstanding performance of duty. When you were assigned as a member of the unit cadre, you assumed some duties which were entirely new. ·For this reason, it was necessary that you institute new procedures. Each task you were given has been carried out with great efficiency. I wish you continued success, in this and all your future endeavors. My very, best wishes and sincere appreciation for a job well done.” (3) A Letter of Appreciation from Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) T, dated 23 August 1968, stating on the eve of my retirement from active military service, “I wish to take this opportunity to extend to you my most sincere appreciation for your excellent service in the performance of your duties as Senior Clerk Typist, WAC Company, Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC), Washington. DC.” “You have continuously displayed ingenuity, enthusiasm, and sound judgement in the execution of your duties and responsibilities. Your evaluation and interpretation of administrative problems have been exerted in a superior manner. Your qualities of courtesy and devotion to duty are a credit to yourself and WRAMC.” “It affords me pleasure to extend to you my appreciation and to wish you success in the future.” 4. On 11 May 1966, the applicant’s parents signed a consent declaration certifying they were her legal guardians and consented to her enlist in the military. 5. On 19 September 1966, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (WAC) for 3 years, in pay grade E-1. She completed the training requirements and she was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B (Medical Specialist) and MOS 71B (Clerk Typist). On 5 February 1967, she was assigned to Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC), Washington, DC, with duties in MOS 91B. 6. A United States Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Report of Investigation, dated 6 September 1968, shows the applicant and others female Soldiers were investigated for indecent lewd and lascivious acts. It was reported between March and June 1968, at the Silver Spring Motel, Silver Spring, MD, the applicant was observed by another female Soldier kissing, embracing, and lying entwined in bed making motions associated with the act of sexual intercourse. 7. A Certificate from the Department of Psychiatry and Neurology Consultation Service Walter Reed General Hospital, WRAMC, states she denied homosexual involvements. Her performance in the military had been fairly good. This document also states: a. Her mental status: Subject related in a composed, although rather distant manner. She appeared mature and of average intelligence. There was no evidence of neurosis, psychosis or organic brain disease. She expressed a desire to terminate her current tour of duty and categorically denied the homosexual charges of which she had been accused of. b. Findings and Conclusions: * Diagnosis - Psychiatric observation; no disease found * A diagnosis of homosexuality cannot be made on the basis of this interview * The subject was and is mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and to adhere to the right, and has the capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings; she met retention standards prescribed in Chapter 3, AR 40-501 * Psychiatric clearance is granted for action deemed appropriate by the command 8. All of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not in the available evidence. However, the available evidence does contain: a. The applicant’s commanders recommendation for the applicant’s separation under the provisions of paragraph 6b(2) AR 635-212 (Personnel Separations-Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability), for unsuitability showing. (1) The discharge was recommended, because of character and behavior disorders as evidenced by attached CID Report of Investigation and two DA Forms 2820 (Statements by Accused or Suspect Person), statements by accusers who stated they witnessed the applicant engage in homosexual activity. (2) On 29 March 1968, the applicant was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, uniform code of military justice (UCMJ), for wrongfully using provoking and offensive words. Her punishment consisted of 14 days of restriction and a forfeiture of $35 pay. The NJP record is not in the available evidence. (3) Due to her own request, she was transferred from duty as a medical specialist to a clerical position in the WAC Company during January 1968. She expressed dissatisfaction with her duties as a senior clerk typist and seemingly felt that her job was below her intelligence level. She was presently assigned as a clerk in the Purchasing and Contracting Section, Logistics Division, WRAMC. (4) She was counselled on the following dates: * 10 February 1967 and 29 March 1968 by the Commanding Officer, WAC Company, WRAMC * 26 August 1968, 26 September 1968, 4 October 1968, and 8 October 1968, by the Commanding Officer, WAC WRAMC * 26 September 1968 by a CPT, Psychiatrist, Walter Reed General Hospital (5) She had the following conduct and efficiency ratings: 1 October 1966 – 25 November 1966 Conduct – Excellent Efficiency – Excellent 26 November 1966 – 4 February 1967 Conduct – Excellent Efficiency – Excellent 5 February 1967 – 18 September 1967 Conduct – None Efficiency – Excellent 19 September 1967 – 31 January 1968 Conduct – Excellent Efficiency – Excellent 1 February 1968 – Present, Conduct – Unsatisfactory Efficiency – Excellent (6) She had no previous record of court-martial. (7) A statement indicated she had been advised of her rights was attached (this statement is not available for review with this case). (8) The commander recommend the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. b. On 28 October 1968, his intermediate commander recommended the applicant’s separation with a General Discharge Certificate. c. On 6 November 1968, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of paragraph 6b(2) AR 635-212, for unsuitability with a General Discharge Certificate. 9. Accordingly, on 8 November 1968, she was discharged. The DD Form 214 she was issued confirms she completed 2 years, 1 month, and 20 days of her 3 year service obligation. She was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal. Additionally, his DD Form 214 shows in: * Reason and Authority, Paragraph 6B(2), AR 635-212, SPN 264 [Unsuitability, Character and Behavior Disorders] * Characterization of Service, “Under Honorable Conditions” 10. AR 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, stated the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded, for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than 3 years but more than 1 year. a. The enlisted person must have had all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings. Ratings of "Unknown" for portions of the period under consideration were not disqualifying. b. There must have been no convictions by a court-martial. However, there was no right or entitlement to the medal until the immediate commander made a positive recommendation for its award and until the awarding authority announced the award in general orders. 11. AR 635-212, in effect at the time, provided the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability based on inaptitude, character and behavior disorder, apathy, enuresis and alcoholism. Members separated under these provisions could receive either an honorable or general discharge. 12. On 23 November 1972, AR 635-200 was published and became the governing regulation for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel, which included the categories of separations previously governed by AR 635-212. Department of the Army (DA) Message # 302221Z, dated March 1976, changed “character and behavior disorder” to “personality disorder” and AR 635-200 was revised on 1 December 1976. 13. A Department of the Army Memorandum dated 14 January 1977, and better known as the Brotzman Memorandum, was promulgated. It required retroactive application of revised policies, attitudes and changes in reviewing applications for upgrade of discharges based on personality disorders. A second memorandum, dated 8 February 1978, and better known as the Nelson Memorandum, expanded the review policy and specified that the presence of a personality disorder diagnosis would justify upgrade of a discharge to fully honorable except in cases where there are "clear and demonstrable reasons" why a fully honorable discharge should not be given. Conviction by general court-martial or by more than one special court-martial was determined to be "clear and demonstrable reasons" which would justify a less than fully honorable discharge. 14. In 1993 the DADT policy was implemented, under this policy the military was banned from investigating service members based on their sexual orientation. In 2011, the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) issued guidance stating Boards should normally grant requests for character of service upgrades when the former Soldier's separation was due to DADT or a similar earlier policy. a. The guidance authorized Boards to amend the Soldier's narrative reason for discharge to "Secretarial Authority" with SPD code JFF, modify their character of service to honorable, change the (RE) code to reflect immediate eligibility (RE-1). b. For the above upgrades to be warranted, the original discharge had to be based solely on DADT (or a similar policy in place prior to enactment of DADT), and no other aggravating factors in the record, such as misconduct. 15. She provided the documents listed above under supporting documents provided to the Board. The Board was provided her submissions in its entirety. 16. The applicant contends that: * Her characterization of service should be upgraded from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable * Her narrative reason should be changed to Secretarial Authority * She should be awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal 17. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-212, by reason of unsuitability, character and behavior disorder with a general discharge. 18. She completed 2 years, 1 month, and 20 days of her 3-year service obligation. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, her service record, submissions, and DADT guidance, in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s 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, and nature of her misconduct and the reason for her separation. The applicant was questioned about her sexual orientation and her response influenced the discharge determination. “ In light of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" with commensurate changes in law regarding homosexuality, the Board determined there is sufficient evidence to grant relief. During deliberation the Board determined the applicant's service record did not reflect she was awarded the AGCM and her record shows she received "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings throughout her service. Therefore, relief was granted to correct the applicant’s record and award her the Army Good Conduct Medal. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 XXX XXX XX GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 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 issuing the applicant a new DD Form 214 for the period ending 8 November 1968 showing in: • Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, Campaign Ribbons and Awarded or Authorized) - Army Good Conduct Medal • item 24 (Characterization of Service): Honorable • item 25 (Separation Authority): Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-3 • item 26 (Separation Code): JFF • item 27 (Reentry Code): 1 • item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation): Secretarial Authority 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): NA REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. AR 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, stated the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded, for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than 3 years but more than 1 year. a. The enlisted person must have had all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings. Ratings of "Unknown" for portions of the period under consideration were not disqualifying. b. There must have been no convictions by a court-martial. However, there was no right or entitlement to the medal until the immediate commander made a positive recommendation for its award and until the awarding authority announced the award in general orders. 3. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) currently in effect states the Army Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency, and fidelity. This period is 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ends with the termination of a period of active Federal military service. Although there is no automatic entitlement to the Army Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified. 4. AR 635-212, in effect at the time, provided the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability based on inaptitude, character and behavior disorder, apathy, enuresis and alcoholism. Members separated under these provisions could receive either an honorable discharge or general discharge. 5. On 23 November 1972, AR 635-200 was published and became the governing regulation for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel, which included the categories of separations previously governed by AR 635-212. Department of the Army (DA) Message # 302221Z, dated March 1976, changed “character and behavior disorder” to “personality disorder” and AR 635-200 was revised on 1 December 1976. 6. A Department of the Army Memorandum dated 14 January 1977, and better known as the Brotzman Memorandum, was promulgated. It required retroactive application of revised policies, attitudes and changes in reviewing applications for upgrade of discharges based on personality disorders. A second memorandum, dated 8 February 1978, and better known as the Nelson Memorandum, expanded the review policy and specified that the presence of a personality disorder diagnosis would justify upgrade of a discharge to fully honorable except in cases where there are "clear and demonstrable reasons" why a fully honorable discharge should not be given. Conviction by general court-martial or by more than one special court-martial was determined to be "clear and demonstrable reasons" which would justify a less than fully honorable discharge. 7. AR 635-89, in effect at the time, prescribed the criteria and procedures for the separation of homosexual personnel from the Army. a. Homosexual personnel, irrespective of sex, were not permitted to serve in the Army in any capacity. Prompt separation was mandatory. The regulation defined three classes of homosexuality: * class I - involving an invasion of the rights of another person, as when the homosexual act is accompanied by assault or coercion, or where the person involved does not willingly cooperate or consent * class II - cases in which homosexual military personnel have engaged in one or more homosexual acts not within the purview of class I * class III - consists of homosexual individuals who have not engaged in homosexual acts while in active military service b. When investigation clearly indicated an individual was a class II homosexual, he/she was be afforded the opportunity to accept a discharge. If not accepted, the commander was to forward the case to the general court-martial convening authority for action. Action could include retention, appropriate action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or separation. c. The separation approval authority determined the character of service, but honorable or general discharges were normally only awarded in cases where the Soldier had disclosed his/her homosexual tendencies when entering the service, if the Soldier served over an extended period of time, or if he/she performed in an outstanding or heroic manner. Upon discharge determination, the Soldier was reduced to PV1/E-1. 8. The DADT policy was implemented in 1993 during the Clinton administration. This policy banned the military from investigating service members about their sexual orientation. Under that policy, service members may be investigated and administratively discharged if they made a statement that they were lesbian, gay or bisexual; engaged in physical contact with someone of the same sex for the purposes of sexual gratification; or married, or attempted to marry, someone of the same sex. 9. Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) memorandum, dated 20 September 2011, subject: Correction of Military Records Following Repeal of Section 654 of Title 10, U.S. Code, provides policy guidance for Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to follow when taking action on applications from former service members discharged under DADT or prior policies. The memorandum states that, effective 20 September 2011, Service DRBs should normally grant requests, in these cases, to change the: * narrative reason for discharge (the change should be to "Secretarial Authority" SPD Code JFF) * characterization of the discharge to honorable * RE code to an immediately-eligible-to-reenter category 10. For the above upgrades to be warranted, the memorandum states both of the following conditions must have been met: the original discharge was based solely on DADT or a similar policy in place prior to enactment of DADT, and there were no aggravating factors in the record, such as misconduct. 11. The memorandum further states that although each request must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, the award of an honorable or general discharge should normally be considered to indicate the absence of aggravating factors. 12. The memorandum also recognized that although BCM/NRs have a significantly broader scope of review and are authorized to provide much more comprehensive remedies than are available from the DRBs, it is DOD policy that broad, retroactive corrections of records from applicants discharged under DADT [or prior policies] are not warranted. Although DADT is repealed effective 20 September 2011, it was the law and reflected the view of Congress during the period it was the law. Similarly, DOD regulations implementing various aspects of DADT [or prior policies] were valid regulations during those same or prior periods. Thus, the issuance of a discharge under DADT [or prior policies] should not by itself be considered to constitute an error or injustice that would invalidate an otherwise properly taken discharge action. 13. 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. 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 based on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. b. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210012570 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEDING 1