IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 November 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004439 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 9 April 2013, as follows: * amend item 24 (Character of Service) to show his character of service as "honorable" instead of "uncharacterized" * amend item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) to show he was discharged by reason of "service-connected disabilities" instead of "entry level performance and conduct" 2. The applicant states: * he is an honorably discharged veteran of the Army due to service-connected disabilities * when he was discharged, item 28 of his DD Form 214 contained the entry "failed medical/physical/procurement standards," which was improperly changed by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) after he requested they change his character of service to "honorable" * he considers this change illegal and inequitable, because, on the DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) he submitted on 4 August 2014, he didn't request a board action to change his narrative reason for separation 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 293, dated 4 August 2014, with attached DD Form 214 for the period ending 9 April 2013 * a letter from the Case Management Division, Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), dated 24 January 2014, with attached DD Form 214 for the period ending 9 April 2013 * his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 5 May 2014 * a service verification letter from the VA, dated 10 May 2014 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 7 November 2012. Prior to his enlistment, he participated in a medical assessment and examination, which found no significant medical issues. 2. He entered active duty at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, on 2 January 2013, for the purpose of completing his initial active duty for training (IADT). 3. His record contains numerous DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form) that record disciplinary counseling he received between 14 February and 26 March 2013, for a variety of performance issues including, but not limited to, his failure to obey orders or regulations, his failure to follow instructions or secure equipment, his lack of effort, his inability to adapt to the military environment, and his disregard for the Army's core values. 4. He underwent a medical assessment on 13 March 2013, in preparation for his administrative separation. His DD Form 2697 (Report of Medical Assessment) that documented the results of this assessment shows: * he considered his overall health to be the same as it was during his last medical assessment/physical examination, which occurred on 7 November 2012 * he had not experience any illnesses or injuries since his last medical assessment/physical examination that caused him to miss duty for longer than 3 days * he had not been seen by or been treated by a health care provider, admitted to a hospital, or had surgery since his last medical assessment/physical examination * he had not suffered from any injuries or illness while on active duty for which he did not seek medical care * he did not intend to seek VA disability * he was not referred for further evaluation and was cleared for separation 5. He accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 22 March 2013 for disobeying a lawful order on 27 February and 8 March 2013. 6. The applicant's immediate commander notified him on 28 March 2013 of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11 (Entry Level Separation), paragraph 11-2a, by reason of his lack of motivation and his lack of self-discipline to continue his track to emotionally and socially adapt to military service. The applicant was further advised that if the request for separation was approved, he would receive an entry level separation and his character of service would be "uncharacterized." The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification memorandum on this same date. 7. The applicant waived representation by counsel and elected not to submit written statements in his own behalf. 8. The applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against him on 28 March 2013, in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, by reason of entry level performance and conduct. The immediate commander noted that the applicant had demonstrated to his chain of command on multiple occasions that he no longer possessed the motivation and self-discipline to continue on his track to emotionally and socially adapt to military service. 9. The separation authority approved his discharge from the Army on 1 April 2013, in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11. 10. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 9 April 2013. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows in: * Item 12c (Record of Service – Net Active Service This Period), he was credited with completing 3 months and 8 days of active military service * Item 23 (Type of Separation), he was discharged from the Army * Item 24 (Character of Service), his service was "uncharacterized" * Item 25 (Separation Authority), he was released in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11 * Item 26 (Separation Code), his separation code was "JFW" * Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), he was released from active duty by reason of "failed medical/physical/procurement standards" 11. The applicant petitioned the ADRB on 26 April 2013 for an upgrade of the uncharacterized character of service shown on his DD Form 214. The ADRB reviewed his discharge on 6 November 2013 and determined he was properly and equitably discharged and denied his request for relief. However, in the processing of his case, the board determined that his DD Form 214 required certain administrative corrections. Consequently, his DD Form 214 was reissued, and the following items were corrected as indicated: * Item 25 was amended to show he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11 * Item 26 was amended to show his separation code as "JGA" * Item 28 was amended to show his narrative reason for separation as "entry level performance and conduct" 12. The applicant provides: a. His Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 5 May 2014, which shows the VA determined him to be 100 percent disabled, service-connected, for schizophrenia, chronic, undifferentiated type, claimed as depression, anxiety, panic attacks, low self-esteem, frustration, and schizophrenia, effective 10 April 2013. b. A service verification letter from the VA, dated 10 May 2014, which shows the VA considered his service between 2 January and 9 April 2013 to have been honorable. 13. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the Army. Chapter 3 describes the different characterizations of service. Chapter 11 provides for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance or conduct, or both, while in an entry level status. a. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Paragraph 3-9 provides that an uncharacterized separation will be described as an entry level separation if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry level status, except when: (1) When characterization Under Other Than Honorable Conditions is authorized under, the reason for separation and is warranted by the circumstances of the case. (2) The Secretary of the Army, on a case by case basis, determines that characterization of service as Honorable is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty. This characterization is authorized when the Soldier is separated by reason of selected changes in service obligation, convenience of the Government and Secretarial plenary authority. d. Paragraph 5-11 (Separation of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards) provides that Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty or active duty for training for initial entry training, may be separated. Such conditions must be discovered during the first 6 months of active duty. e. Paragraph 11-2 provides for the separation of Soldiers in entry level status when warranted by unsatisfactory performance or minor disciplinary infractions (or both) as evidenced by inability, the lack of reasonable effort, or failure to adapt to the military environment. f. Paragraph 11-3 provides that this separation policy applied to Soldiers who voluntarily enlisted in the Regular Army, Army National Guard, or USAR; were in entry level status and, before the date of the initiation of separation action, had completed no more than 180 days of continuous active duty or IADT (or no more than 90 days of Phase II under the split or alternate training option); had demonstrated that they were not qualified for retention; or had failed to respond to counseling. An uncharacterized description of service was required for separation under this chapter. 14. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. a. Paragraph 3-2 provides that for members being separated by reasons other than physical disability, his or her continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until he or she is scheduled for separation or retirement creates a presumption that he or she is fit. This presumption can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is unable to perform his or her duties for a period of time or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation, renders the member unfit. b. Under the laws governing the Army PDES, Soldiers who sustain or aggravate physically unfitting disabilities must meet the following line of duty criteria to be eligible to receive retirement and severance pay benefits: (1) The disability must have been incurred or aggravated while the Soldier was entitled to basic pay or as the proximate cause of performing active duty or inactive duty training (IDT); and (2) The disability must not have resulted from the Soldier’s intentional misconduct or willful neglect and must not have been incurred during a period of unauthorized absence. c. Paragraph 4-9 provides that the medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him and will, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refer the member to an MEB. d. Paragraph 4-13 provides that those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a PEB for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically-disqualifying condition. 15. Army Regulation 635-40 defines "physically unfit" as unfitness due to physical disability when the unfitness is of such a degree that a Soldier is unable to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty. It states the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. To ensure all Soldiers are physically qualified to perform their duties in a reasonable manner, medical retention qualification standards have been established in Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3. These guidelines are used to refer Soldiers to a medical evaluation board (MEB). 16. Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment; induction; appointment, including officer procurement programs; retention; and separation, including retirement. Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, a physical evaluation board (PEB) rates all disabilities using the VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities. 17. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating at less than 30 percent. 18. Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for disabilities that were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of any VA rating does not establish error or injustice by the Army. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge that disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The Army disability rating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career. The VA does not have authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service. The VA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge, to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. As a result, these two government agencies, operating under different policies, may arrive at a different disability rating based on the same impairment. Unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show he was honorably discharged by reason of service-connected disabilities. He further contends he was discharged because he "failed medical/physical/procurement standards," and that legitimate entry was improperly changed by the ADRB after he requested they upgrade his character of service. 2. The applicant's initial entry physical, administered on 7 November 2012, shows he was medically cleared for military service with no significant issues whatsoever. 3. The applicant entered active duty on 2 January 2013 and was discharged on 9 April 2013. His record shows he entered active duty for IADT and began, but did not complete, basic training. During basic training, he received disciplinary counseling for a variety of performance issues including, but not limited to, his failure to obey orders or regulations, his failure to follow instructions or secure equipment, his lack of effort, his inability to adapt to the military environment, and his disregard for the Army's core values. He also received nonjudicial punishment for his failure on two accounts to obey a lawful order. Accordingly, his chain of command initiated separation proceedings against him. 4. He underwent a medical assessment on 13 March 2013, in preparation for his administrative separation. His Report of Medical Assessment shows he possessed no physical issues that warranted his entry into the PDES and he was cleared for separation. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 9 April 2013. His initial DD Form 214 shows he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, by reason of "failed medical/physical/procurement standards." However, the applicant's initial entry physical, administered on 7 November 2012, shows he was medically cleared for military service with no significant issues whatsoever and his separation physical, administered on 13 March 2013, shows he possessed no physical issues that warranted his entry into the PDES and he was cleared for separation. 6. Following his discharge, the VA determined him to be 100 percent disabled, service-connected, for schizophrenia, chronic, undifferentiated type, claimed as depression, anxiety, panic attacks, low self-esteem, frustration, and schizophrenia, effective 10 April 2013. However, his record is void of documentation that shows he suffered from these afflictions during his period of military service. Additionally, the VA characterized his service as honorable. 7. Consequently, the applicant petitioned the ADRB for a change in his characterization of service. However, the VA's characterization of his service as honorable is only applicable for VA purposes and does not equate to an error on the part of the Army. The ADRB found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for relief; however, it noted a number errors on the applicant's DD Form 214 and took action to administratively correct those errors. 8. The applicant contends those corrections were illegal and inequitable because he did not request them; however, a proper review of his records found that the entries in question were incorrect as shown. 9. The applicant's separation documents confirm he was discharged because of entry level performance and conduct. Therefore, the ADRB, acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, was within its right to amend his separation document to show correct and relevant entries. 10. The governing Army regulation provides that Soldiers are considered to be in an entry level status if separation processing is initiated within the first 180 days of their service. The evidence shows the applicant's separation processing was initiated prior to his 180th day of service; therefore, the entry level status designation was appropriate in his case. 11. When separated while in an entry level status, a Soldier's service is usually not characterized unless the circumstances of the separation warrant an under other-than-honorable conditions discharge. An honorable characterization may be given only if the Soldier's service clearly warrants that characterization by unusual circumstances of personal conduct and performance of military duty, as determined by the Secretary of the Army. A general characterization of service is not authorized. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100000887 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004439 9 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1