ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 August 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180002245 APPLICANT REQUESTS: through Counsel: . physical disability discharge in lieu of academic discharge . relief from his service obligation . relief from educational benefit reimbursement debt . the opportunity to earn his Bachelor of Science degree APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: • DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) • Counsel’s Brief • Privacy Act Release • self-authored letter to Member of Congress • Medical Record • 12 USMA, Center for Personal Development documents • USMA memorandum, dated 8 August 2016 • 10 letters of support • U.S. Military Academy (USMA) Transcript, dated 5 October 2016 • USMA Transcript, dated 6 October 2016 • USMA Transcript Explanation • Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary Manpower and Reserve Affairs memorandum, dated 16 December 2016 • Department of the Army, G1, USMA Orders 044-0001, dated 13 February 2017 • Clinical and Forensic Consulting, P.L.C., Forensic Psychological Evaluation, dated 18 April 2017 • resume for Dr. B____ • Dr. K____ letter, dated 25 July 2017 • resume for Dr. K____ • Department of the Army, Adjutant General/G1, USMA letter, dated 30 April 2018 FACTS: 1. Counsel states: a. The applicant was separated from the USMA in September 2016 for “willfully” failing two 400 level advanced mathematics classes. In spite of his academic transgressions, he achieved a 3.1 grade point average (GPA) with 144 semester hours of completed work in the rigorous disciplines of Operations Research and Systems Engineering. Additionally, he had completed all other military and physical fitness requirements while maintaining a clean disciplinary records. b. Subsequent to his separation, extensive evaluations by civilian psychologists and psychiatrists revealed he was suffering from major depressive disorder for 3 years, a condition that was misdiagnosed while under the care of psychiatrists at West Point. Based on the evidence submitted and the legal obligation to afford an applicant fitting relief, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) has sufficient reason to upgrade his discharge by changing the narrative reason from academic to medical, granting him the opportunity to earn his Bachelors of Science degree, and releasing him from both his service and debt obligations. c. The Secretary of the Army has the discretion to determine if the applicant’s repayment of the unearned portion of the bonus or similar benefit is appropriate based on whether repayment would be contrary to a personnel policy or management objective, would be against equity and good conscience, or would be contrary to the best interests of the United States. The Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation 700, Volume 7A, chapter 2, paragraph 14-R, states that in instances involving a member’s separation for medical reasons, which were not the result of the member’s misconduct, the Secretary of the Military Department concerned has the discretion to determine whether to require repayment of the unearned portion of pay or benefit or to pay an unpaid balance of a pay or benefit. d. Since his youth, the applicant exhibited the strongest desire to serve and lead with the goal of gaining admission to the USMA. Previous graduates of the USMA at West Point and Members of Congress, having known the applicant throughout his youth, have attested to such in attached letters. Prior to his arrival at the Academy, the applicant’s academic record was exemplary. In addition to receiving a Presidential nomination to the USMA, he accrued numerous commendations and accolades, including the Georgia Governor’s Honors Program, National Honor Society, National Merit Commendation and Advanced Placement Scholar with Distinction. He graduated at the top of his high school class while scoring in the 99th and 98th percentiles of the American College Test (ACT) and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) respectively. e. Despite a passion for philosophy, the applicant challenged himself by majoring in Operations Research and in so doing he maintained a 3.1 GPA and made the Dean’s List for half of his tenure at the Academy. All the while, he completed his military and physical fitness requirements with a clean disciplinary record. The applicant initially experienced an episode of depression during his second year at West Point, shortly after undergoing ankle surgery. His initial assessment with a West Point psychologist took place on 30 October 2013. After two sessions, the psychologist’s diagnostic conclusion was recurrent, episodic depression exacerbated by adjustment-related stress. She then referred him for medication and initiated cognitive behavioral therapy. The applicant was then evaluated by a West Point psychiatrist on 8 November 2013 and diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood. His treatment and diagnosis of adjustment disorder with depressed mood continued throughout periods of time for the remainder of his tenure at the Academy. f. During his 4th year at the Academy, the applicant failed two 400 level advanced mathematics courses. As a result of his academic track record leading up to his transgressions, West Point allowed him the opportunity to rectify the failed courses and was given a later graduation date to allow him time to retake one course in the fall. However, since he failed a second course in the spring semester, he was afforded the opportunity to retake the second course final exam and if he passed, to repeat the first failed course, Nonlinear Optimization. His retest for the second course, Mathematical Statistics, resulted in another failing grade, although he had studied for over 200 hours during the summer in preparation for his retest. Shortly afterward, an Academic Board was convened and in a split vote, the applicant was separated for “willfully” failing his course. g. The applicant requests the following relief: . change his discharge designation from academic to medical . afford him the opportunity to earn his Bachelor of Science degree . relieve him from his service obligation . relieve him from any debt . grant any other relief as justice requires h. After being separated from the USMA, the applicant was evaluated by Dr. B____, a forensic psychologist. Dr. B____ fully reviewed his treatment records at the Academy as well as interviewed and tested him. She concluded he was suffering from both persistent depressive disorder and episodes of major depressive disorder while he attended West Point. She further explains his condition was likely under-diagnosed due to his verbal intellect and ability to appear more functional than he was at the time. In addressing the possibility that he “willfully” failed, she opined that he had personality characteristics centered on conscientiousness and compliance that made it particularly difficult for him to acknowledge problems and to ask for the level of help he needs when he needs it. As a result, more aggressive treatments were not implemented and he struggled throughout the entire 4 years, culminating in course failures in his final year. i. Dr. B____ further indicated the applicant’s condition was under-diagnosed by his treating West Point psychiatrist as it was more serious and longstanding than an adjustment disorder. She stated the treatment approach of “normalizing” his experience might have been useful if he had actually been suffering from an adjustment disorder; however, it is less effective with this entrenched form of depression. In fact, normalization could increase hopelessness and despair in individuals who suffer from longstanding depression as they are told that their experience is normal and can be overcome, but then they are unable to conquer their depression through this voluntary shift in attitude. j. Clearly, as Dr. B____ explains in her evaluation, the applicant battled persistent depressive disorder and major depressive disorder throughout his tenure at West Point. All the while, he was under-diagnosed and offered a treatment plan which likely further inhibited his ability to succeed in his rigorous academic environment. Additionally, the applicant’s civilian psychiatrist, Dr. K____ has completed an evaluation of the applicant that concurs with Dr. B____’s diagnosis of major depressive disorder. k. Dr. K_____ stated she disagreed with West Point’s determination that the applicant willfully disregarded his duties. From his sophomore through his senior years at West Point, he was diagnosed with depressive symptoms. Treatment was cursory. However, as the contemporaneous psychological testing and her own subsequent examination of the applicant inform, he was experiencing a more severe major depression at that time than was diagnosed at West Point. Furthermore, this major depression was in the context of previous episodes of his clinically significant recurrent mood disorder that was not recognized by the Academy. l. In addition to confirming a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, Dr. K____ has begun treating the applicant for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which provides further insight into his academic struggles in his last year at West Point. Dr. K____ states the applicant has ADHD, inattentive type. This was not diagnosed while he was at West Point. As is common with patients with this diagnosis, especially very intelligent ones, they are able to compensate for their attentional difficulties mainly through sheer intellectual prowess, until they reach the threshold at which more attention is required to complete advanced studies. Often this occurs in middle school. Ironically, it is specifically the applicant’s unusual intellectual capacity that permitted him to excel until he was a senior in college. It was her opinion that the applicant’s undiagnosed ADHD was a clinically significant contributor to his inability to complete his assignments. m. Impressively, despite these rigors and his challenging environment, the applicant managed to maintain a strong academic record, physical fitness and disciplinary integrity, while completing his required coursework toward earning his degree. Had the Academic Board been able to recognize his ADHD and major depressive disorder as the pivotal elements that were hindering his academic success, it is suspected they would have intervened to assess and help him with the medical obstacles he was facing, as done at other academic institutions. After all, students like the applicant do not jump through all the hoops to reach 400 level mathematics classes and then “willfully fail.” n. It would be an injustice to the applicant, the USMA at West Point, and the U.S. Army to say the applicant’s transgressions were willful. Clearly, he was battling an under-diagnosed medical condition with a treatment plan that likely further inhibited his chances of success at the USMA. The Academic Board failed to take into account the applicant’s serious medical condition and thus incorrectly assigned “willful” failure in his separation. The ABCMR has sufficient evidence to grant the applicant’s requested relief and release him from his service and debt obligations. 2. In a letter to his Member of Congress, the applicant states: a. He is engaged in a legal dispute with the U.S. Army over the terms of his dismissal from the USMA. Originally a West Point cadet in the Class of 2016, he was dismissed from the USMA on the grounds of failing two mathematics courses during his senior year. While he does respect the Academy’s right to decide who is and who is not fit for graduation and commission, he does not believe it maintains the moral authority to hold him financially accountable for the decision. b. During the process of his separation, he was informed he owed the Army up to $223,000.00 or 3 years of active duty service as recoupment for the taxpayers’ investment in his education. Because West Point’s Academic Board deemed that his failures were deliberate, he is now being held accountable for this substantial burden. He believes this charge lacks any basis in reality and constitutes a gross violation of the enlistment contract he signed upon entering the USMA, so he has submitted an application to the ABCMR in order to rectify the situation. c. His appeal to the ABCMR aims to overturn the Academic Board’s characterization of his class failures as “willful.” Empirically, this opinion is already contradicted by the passing GPA that he maintained in all three domains of graded performance: academic, physical, and military. He still maintained a cumulative academic GPA of 3.06when he was dismissed. Additionally, he discovered that the psychiatric treatment he received as a cadet beginning in his second year was woefully inadequate by civilian standards. His Army psychiatrist misdiagnosed his medical condition when he sought treatment for depression and he routinely ignored his reports of having difficulty concentrating on his work. He suspects he did this in order to ensure his medical status on paper would allow him to commission, but in so doing the psychiatrist under-treated the conditions impeding his mental health. After his separation, he received evaluation, counseling, and treatment through civilian practitioners that is dramatically improved relative to the treatment he received under the Army’s healthcare system. d. This improved medical attention yielded a much more dramatic diagnosis of major depression for over 2 years, along with a diagnosis of ADHD. His previous psychiatrist had misdiagnosed and thus under-treated the first condition and had either dismissed or failed to recognize the second diagnosis. Whereas he had originally considered his class failures entirely as deficiencies of his own making, he now has reason to believe that the subpar medical attention he received as a cadet contributed significantly to the conditions that brought about his separation. Thus, while he is willing to accept the judgement indicating his unsuitability for graduation from West Point and commissioning into the Army, he will not accept the judgement that his failure was “willful.” In addition to placing a significant burden upon myself and my family, that judgement constitutes a grave insult to his character, which he hopes to annul. e. He has confidence in the merits of his case and in the preponderance of the evidence he has submitte3d in support of it, but is less confident in the competence of the military bureaucracy that is charged with rectifying his situation. The Army’s administrative systems already delayed the delivery of his complete DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for 14 months past the date of his separation, an extended period of time during which he was effectively prevented from transferring to another undergraduate program or finding long-term employment. f. Additionally, he was not furnished with a point of contact that would facilitate his transition into enlisted service. The carelessness with which the Army treated his discharge demonstrates clearly that the Army is not particularly interested in retaining his service nor does it care about wasting his time. While he had originally maintained a high level of motivation to serve in spite of the tumultuous disruption of his career, waiting for more than 1 year to receive the corrected discharge paperwork required for enlistment gave him a considerable amount of time to reflect upon his relationship with the U.S. Army. g. Combined with the professional opinions of his legal counsel and psychiatrist that he abstain from additional military service, his reevaluation of the events surrounding his dismissal, including the Army’s administrative negligence, has yielded the conclusion that the Army does not have a justified claim upon additional years of service or financial compensation as repayment on an investment that it chose to throw away. He fought desperately for the chance to redeem himself and was soundly rejected, so he does not understand why the Army is entitled to anything beyond the 4 years he has already given. h. Because his previous dealings with the Army’s bureaucracy have given him every reason to expect indolence, incompetence, and indifference in its future handling of his affairs, he has no choice but to look toward a more responsible arm of Government for fair treatment. Thus, he respectfully requests support from his Member of Congress in holding a system accountable that may very well dismiss his petition with little regard for the merits of his case. He would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with his Member of Congress to discuss this matter in person and has attached several enclosures, including a copy of his petition to the ABCMR. 3. On 2 July 2012, the applicant signed an Oath of Allegiance having been appointed a cadet of the USMA, wherein he agreed: . to complete the course of instruction at the USMA . to serve a total of 8 years from graduation from the USMA, any part of which not completed on active duty must be served in a Reserve Component . that if he failed to complete the course of instruction of the USMA, breach of service agreement, or declined to accept an appointment as a commissioned officer, he would serve on active duty as specified in the Statement of Policies . that if he voluntarily or due to misconduct failed to complete the specified period of active duty, he would reimburse the United States in an amount that bears the same ratio to the total cost of advanced education provided him as the unserved portion of active duty bears to the total period of active duty he agreed to serve 4. The Statement of Policies included with the applicant’s Oath of Allegiance signed on 2 July 2012, states: a. A cadet who has commenced his or her Second Class academic year and who resigns or is separated prior to completing the course of instruction, except for physical disqualification, unfitness, or unsuitability, will normally be transferred to a Reserve Component in an enlisted status and, if deemed to have breached his or her service agreement, may be ordered to active duty for not less than 2 years but no more than 4 years. b. “Breach of service agreement” includes separation resulting from resignation, for any of the basis for separation listed in Army Regulation 210-26 (USMA) Table 7-1, including all additions to Table 7-1 subsequent to the date of this agreement or from other willful acts or omissions in paragraph 7-9. 5. The applicant provided numerous documents form the USMA Center for Personal Development (CPD), all of which have been provided in full for the Board’s review. a. An Intake Note, dated 30 October 2013, states in pertinent part the applicant was self-referred at his parents’ recommendation. The applicant stated his parents were strongly invested in his staying at the USMA and they question his thinking about resigning. He was certain the Academy was not the place for him but he promised his parents he would see a counselor before talking to his advisor about resigning. He relayed first feeling depression in 11th grade after a romantic break-up and the beginning of depression again in the current semester due to incapacitating stress and pressure to remain enrolled. He had difficulty concentrating in class and endorsed many symptoms of stress related depression. He endorsed thought of killing himself 5 weeks prior, but thereafter rejected that idea as completely inconsistent with his values and would never act on that thought. The applicant did not want to consider medication, however he expressed openness to supportive counseling. b. A Progress Note, dated 5 November 2013 shows the applicant was seen again for counseling where he expressed he felt a little less depressed, though not free of stress. He had been feeling consistently angry and stressed and the fact that he fell behind on a science project over the weekend didn’t help any. The impression was of recurrent, episodic depression, exacerbated by adjustment-related stress. He was scheduled for a psychiatric evaluation on the upcoming Friday and he agreed to contact his provider should his mood worsen significantly before then. 6. A Medical Record, dated 8 November 2013 shows: a. The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood. b. The estimate risk of harm to himself/others was considered low. He was not deemed an imminent threat to self or others. He was not felt to be withholding information about suicidal/homicidal ideation or risk factors. He understood how to access/request emergency services if needed in the future. Out patient management was deemed appropriate. c. The treatment plan was to initiate treatment with Wellbutrin and see him again in 1 week as well as a recommendation he continue individual psychotherapy at the CPD. The applicant’s care was voluntary, thus discharge would be based on satisfactory resolution of his symptoms or at the applicant’s choice. 7. Multiple additional documents from the USMA CPD show the following: a. A Progress Note, dated 12 November 2013 shows the applicant was seen for a follow up visit where he indicated his academic performance was improved and he endorsed confidence he would be able to stay on top of his studies. He was hoping medication and treatment support would help his motivation to be at West Point. He denied despairing and suicidal thoughts. b. A Progress Note, dated 22 November 2013, shows the applicant was seen for a follow up visit where he related feeling busy and experiencing satisfaction of work with positive stress. Although he still had difficulty getting started on any homework or studying, once he got started he was able to focus effectively. His depression and concentration were much improved. He had no suicidal ideations. He endorsed satisfaction with positive changes and expressed an awareness of the need for improved study habits. c. A Closing Treatment Summary, dated 10 March 2014, shows the applicant had a total of 4 treatment sessions between 30 October 2013 through 22 November 2013 for depression and passive suicidal ideation in reaction to stress. The applicant decided to terminate treatment because he was feeling less stressed and did not schedule follow up visits or respond to outreach after the holiday break. It was recommended he return for treatment should his depressed mood and/or suicidal ideation of any kind recur and not wait. d. A Progress Note, dated 23 September 2014, shows the applicant returned for counseling after a 10-month hiatus. He was grappling with a bit time management learning curve after having decided to take on an especially heavy academic load this term in an attempt to get the academic demands “over with” now. He still harbored residual resentment over life at West Point and identified low mood and motivation. He had no suicidal ideations or urges to self-harm. e. A Progress Note, dated 4 November 2014, shows the applicant presented to CPD 6 weeks his last visit, which was the first this academic year. He was struggling mightily for behavioral control over poor concentration, depressed mood, and low motivation with a dramatic sense of failure with attendant shame and guilt. His performance was notably worse this term compared to all other terms and he was failing 2 or 3 classes in his most demanding term to date. His grades had been middle of the road, but were slipping this term. He attributed his lackluster physical performance to issues surrounding ankle surgery and recovery at the end of last term. His record was also notable for poor academic conduct, including unexcused absences and failures to report, handing is assignments VERY late and was carrying two “F” grades and 2 “C” grades at the 10-week mark. He was on pass restriction and expressed concern he would not be able to turn things around. He was assessed with depression, stress overload, and poor decision-making. f. A Progress Note, dated 13 November 2014, shows he was seen for a follow-up where he presented feeling less stressed than last week and getting his assignments in on time due to active efforts to reduce distraction and make more productive sue of his time. He expressed knowing since his first year he did not want an Army career, yet he wanted to graduate from West Point. He was assessed as having depression under stress which improved with therapy and stress reduction and improved decision-making. g. A Closing Summary, dated 13 January 2015, shows the counselor made the decision to terminate treatment for depression, low motivation, stress overload, and decision-making issues after three sessions from 23 September 2014 to 13 November 2014 due to the applicant’s poor follow through. He was advised to follow up with Dr. H____ as needed. h. A Progress Note, dated 1 December 2015, shows he returned to treatment 3 weeks after experiencing a return to his depressed/angry/despairing mood with passive suicidal ideation after having pulled several all-nighters to catch up with academics. He also reported running out of Wellbutrin for a brief period of time. He was recovering from his “mid fall meltdown” and figured it was probably a good idea to get back into therapy. His biggest worry was his ability to pass all classes and graduate on time. He was failing one particularly difficult math class and was working with his instructor. His motivation for academics was still a struggle; motivation to study for this most difficult class was particularly low. He planned to implement changes in organizational skills, time management, and strategies for enhancing motivation and concentration. Depression recurrence was in the process of resolving on medication and with improved sleep. i. An Exit Interview, dated 19 May 2016, shows the applicant was pending separation for academic reasons and this was to close out his record. He failed a math class and had the right to reexamine in August (his second this year). His mental health screening was within normal limits. He had no suicidal or homicidal ideation or psychiatric risks. Is mood or affect was positive and he planned to work out twice per day and study for his math reexamination and socialize with friends. He would make a follow up appointment with Dr. H____ before going home for the summer. 8. A USMA memorandum, dated 8 August 2016, shows: a. The Academic Board determined on 5 August 2016, the applicant failed his re­examination in MA476, which was administered on 21 July 2016. As a result of this failure, he would be recommended to the Superintendent for separation from the USMA. b. Pursuant to Army Regulation 210-26, paragraph 7-9, cadets separated from the USMA for deficiency may be deemed by the Superintendent to have breached their service agreement if the failures are considered to be the result of the cadet’s willful act or omission. For the reasons listed below, the Academic Board on 5 August 2016, believes his failure may have been willful: (1) Ability: His instructors and Training, Advising, and Counseling (TAC) team believe he had the ability to complete his academic work; however, he failed to consistently apply himself. (2) Academics: His instructors reported during Term 16-2 he consistently failed to apply himself, resulting in failing multiple graded events, and was late with assignments. He demonstrated a lack of discipline and drive, which illustrates he chose not to apply himself in the academic program. He demonstrated a pattern of poor work ethic and a willful lack of commitment to his duties. c. He was further advised that he may present a written rebuttal to the Academic Board’s allegation that his deficiencies were the result of willful acts or omissions on his part. His written rebuttal should be received by the Office of the Dean no later than the close of business on the 10th day after receipt of this letter. Failure to respond will result in his separation with the statement that his failures are believed to be willful. Should his actions be determined willful by the Academic Board, fulfillment of his obligation will be mandated by way of service in the U.S. Army or financial recoupment to the U.S. Government. 9. The applicant provided numerous letters of support addressed to the USMA Academic Board, all of which have been provided in full to the Board for review. The letters are from family friends, fellow former cadets (recently commissioned), his Tactical Officer, prior instructor, a prior Member of Congress, and other USMA graduates. They attest to the applicant’s growth in maturity over his 4 years at the USMA, his excellent character, intelligence, future ability to perform as an officer in the U.S. Army, and request the Academic Board consider his reinstatement. 10. The applicant’s available records for review are void of a self-authored, written rebuttal to the Academic Board’s allegation that his deficiencies were the result of willful acts or omissions on his part. 11. A USMA CPD Progress Note, dated 15 August 2016, shows the applicant was seen on a follow-up visit while his separation for academics was in progress. He failed one course in each semester last year and was separated with the right to re-test. He reposted studying on his own all summer and although he felt confident going into the math re-test, the exam was much more difficult than he anticipated and he was not surprised to learn he failed the re-test. He was in the process of mounting an appeal, but realized his separation was not likely to be reversed. He was hoping to stave off recoupment, even if that necessitated payback via Army service, but was hoping for an unqualified “no recoupment” decision, in which case he planned to finish his college education at a civilian school. He was assessed as having separation-related adjustment stress with not suicidal/homicidal issues and felt highly supported by family, friends, and instructors. 12. With the applicant’s application packet to the ABCMR, Counsel provided a copy of a USMA transcript, dated 5 October 2016, which is a copy of the academic record of another USMA cadet with the same first and last name as the applicant, different middle name, who entered the Academy on 30 June 2008 and graduated with the Class of 2012 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Nuclear Engineering. It is unclear how this transcript was obtained or why it was provided, presumptively in error. 13. With the applicant’s letter to his Member of Congress, he provided a copy of his own USMA transcript, dated 6 October 2016, which shows two failing courses in his final year of attendance and a cumulative GPA of 3.06. It does not reflect the applicant graduated. 14. A Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Manpower and Reserve Affairs memorandum, dated 16 December 2016 shows: a. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Military Personnel and Quality of Life) approved the USMA’s recommendation to separate the applicant from the USMA under the provisions of Army Regulation 210-26, paragraph 6-32a, for academic program deficiency. b. Pursuant to Army Regulation 612-205 (Appointment and Separation of Service Academy Attendees), Table 3, rule 7, the applicant was directed to be transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in the grade of E-4 for 3 years and immediately ordered to active duty for 3 years. c. In the event the applicant was ineligible for enlisted service or failed to complete his 3-year active duty service, he would repay a proportionate amount of the advanced education assistance expended on his behalf. 15. Department of the Army, G1, USMA, Orders 044-0001, dated 13 February 2007, ordered the applicant to active duty enlisted service in the rank/grade of specialist/E-4 no later than 17 December 2016 and reassigned him to the USAR Control Group (Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)). He was to report to his local Army Recruiting Station no later than 13 March 2017 to be assigned a military occupational specialty and Advanced Individual Training date, with subsequent order to active duty for a period of 3 years. 16. The applicant’s DD Form 214 was issued on 15 February 2017 and shows: a. He entered active duty on 16 December 2016 and was separated from active duty on 2 July 2012; these dates are obviously erroneously transposed. Item 18 (Remarks) clarify his service was as a USMA cadet from 2 July 2012 to 16 December 2016 and his service was not creditable for any purpose in commissioned officer status. b. The separation authority was Army Regulation 612-205 and Army Regulation 210-26. His narrative reason for separation is listed as academic and his service is characterized as honorable. He was released from active duty and transferred to the USAR Control Group (IRR) for order to active duty in another status. 17. A Forensic Psychological Evaluation, dated 18 April 2017, completed by Dr. B____, board certified in forensic psychology has been provided in full for the Board’s review. The report shows in pertinent part: a. The applicant was evaluated on 16 November 2016. Dr. B____’s conclusions were that his current evaluation and available information reveled the applicant struggled with two forms of depression, namely, persistent depressive disorder and major depressive disorder (recurrent, moderate severity). The age of onset was approximately 16 years old with his first substantial depressive episode at 17. Although he is exceptionally bright, he has a history that indicates difficulty mobilizing his psychological resources to manage stress and thus becomes highly vulnerable to depressive episodes when he is overwhelmed. b. His perceived failures or sudden shifts in expectations and life demands were particularly problematic for him. He experiences conflict between being highly conscientious and want to please authority figures, while at the same time resenting the constraints and longing to escape and make his own choices. His difficulty managing this internal conflict is often turned inward, causing him to feel depressed, inadequate, despondent, and confused. c. Extremely intelligent individuals such as the applicant often have substantial psychological resources to draw upon, even if they are at the same time struggling with mental disorders. This is the likely reason he was able to pass his courses adequately through most of the semesters until he finally reached a point where the stress outstripped his ability to cope. It is notable that his grades were considerably lower than his intellectual potential and the records indicate he had persistently reported difficulty with concentration. d. The records indicate his condition was under-diagnosed by his treating psychiatrist as it was considerably more longstanding and serio9us in nature than an adjustment disorder. The treatment approach of “normalizing” his experience might have been useful if he had actually been suffering from an adjustment disorder; however, it is less effective with this entrenched form of depression. e. Base on the available information and current evaluation, it was her opinion the applicant was suffering from both persistent depressive disorder and episodes of major depressive disorder while he attended the USMA. His condition was likely under-diagnosed in part due to his verbal intellect and ability to appear more functional than he actually was. He has personality characteristics centered on conscientiousness and compliance that make it particularly difficult for him to acknowledge problems and to ask for the level of help he needs when he needs it. As a result, more aggressive treatments were not implemented and he struggled throughout the entire 4 years, culminating in course failures in his final year. 18. A letter from a psychiatrist, Dr. K_____, addressed to the applicant’s representing Counsel, dated 25 July 2017, shows: a. She was the treating psychiatrist for the applicant and disagreed with the USMA’s determination that the applicant “willfully” disregarded his duties. From his sophomore through his senior years, he was diagnosed with depressive symptoms and his treatment was cursory. Contemporaneous psychological testing and her examination of the applicant shows he was experiencing a more severe major depression at that time than was diagnosed while at the USMA. Furthermore, this major depression was in the context of previous episodes of his clinically significant recurrent mood disorder that was not recognized by the Academy. b. It was her opinion that the applicant’s symptoms of major depression were the cause of his inability to complete his assignments and not a willful disregard of his duties. He also has ADHD, inattentive type, which was not previously diagnosed. As is common with patients with this diagnosis, especially very intelligent ones, they are able to compensate for their attentional difficulties mainly through sheer intellectual prowess until they reach the threshold at which more attention is required to complete advanced studies. c. Ironically, it is specifically the applicant’s unusual intellectual capacity that permitted him to excel until he was a senior in college. It was her opinion that the applicant’s undiagnosed ADHD was a clinically significant contributor to his inability to complete his assignments. Thus, it was her opinion that he did not willfully disregard his duties. She believed his major depression and ADHD combined to make it impossible for him to carry out his assignments. 19. A DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) was issued on 10 October 2017 and shows Item 12a (Date Entered Active Duty this Period) was corrected to reflect 2 July 2012 and Item 12b (Separation Date this Period) was corrected to reflect 16 December 2016. 20. A Department of the Army, Adjutant General/G1, USMA letter to the applicant, dated 30 April 2018 shows: a. The USMA Office of the Adjutant General/G1 received notification that he has been unable to enlist as directed ty the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) in a memorandum dated 16 December 2016. b. Based on these circumstances, in accordance with the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) memorandum, unless he could provide documentation that specifically prohibited him from entering the Army as instructed, his action would be submitted to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service on 1 July 2018, to initiate recoupment of his educational costs in the amount of $223,769.00 in accordance with paragraph d of his Orders Number 044-0001, dated 13 February 2017 which state subsequent disqualification for enlisted service may result in the applicant’s debt to the U.S. Government for accrued education costs. c. If he wished to submit matters for consideration by the Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), he must submit matters by 15 June 2018. 21. The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s academics and military medical records. A review of Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) & treatment notes from the West Point Center for Personal Development indicates the applicant was seen for treatment starting 30 Oct 2013 with 3 follow-up therapy appointments and three medication management appointments. His diagnosis was Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. He reported a history of depressive symptoms going back to high school after a breakup with a girlfriend. He reported “emotional friction withWest Point” and feels “stuck being here.” On 13 Dec 2013, he reported a positive response to Wellbutrin. He did not return for treatment until 23 Sept 2014. He reported struggling with time management and low motivation. He reported discontinuing medication several months before and was experiencing a return in his depressive symptoms. He restarted medication on 17 Nov 2014 and continued medication management but discontinued therapy after 3 sessions. On 22 Jan 2015, he reported “definite improvement over the last few weeks” but was considering a medical leave of absence to “work on myself in order to be certain that I will be ready as possible to commission.” On 12 Mar 2015, he reported his mood as “generally positive”, was no longer interested in a medical leave of absence, and has “maintained a good level of productivity. On 22 Apr 2015, he reported he was doing okay but had a “breakdown” when he became overwhelmed after struggling with a project and felt distraught for a few hours. He reported pulling himself together with support of family and peers. He reported feeling unsettled after he was told he will most likely be unable to branch combat arms because of his ankle injury. He “acknowledged he had stopped taking his medication for about 5 days before his “breakdown.” On 20 May 2015, the applicant reported “his mood has been improved over the last few weeks.” He returned to treatment on 7 Dec 2015. He reported having an okay mood but stated he had stopped taking his medication a few weeks ago and wanted to restart the medication. He returned to treatment on 5 Apr 2016. The applicant reported he had been taking his Wellbutrin and his mood had been generally stable. His provider changed his diagnosis from Adjustment Disorder to Dysthymic Disorder. On 11 Aug 2016, he reported “his mood has generally been OK over the last couple of months.” He stated “he failed 2 courses and failed the retest he will be academically separated.” He denied having significant or overwhelming depressive or anxiety symptoms. On 15 Feb 2017, he reported he was academically separated from the military and he found out he would be serving in the military on the enlisted side starting sometime in the next few months. He said he was relatively pleased. He “expressed that he would like to taper off the mediation. He says that he has been feeling stable and happy for a long time and does not feel he still needs the medication.” On18 Apr 2017, the applicant was evaluated by a forensic psychologist. The psychologist diagnosed him with Persistent Depressive Disorder (also known as Dysthymic Disorder) and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), recurrent, moderate severity. Psychological testing placed his IQ in the superior range. She opined that his conscientiousness and compliance “make it particularly difficult for him to acknowledge problems and to ask for the level of help he needs when he needs it.” A letter from his treating psychiatrist dated 25 Jul 2017 reports he diagnosed the applicant with MDD and ADHD, inattentive type. He asserts the applicant’s ADHD was a significant contributor to his inability to complete assignments. A review of all medical documentation supports the applicant had Persistent Depressive Disorder while at West Point. His sporadic use of treatment coinciding with significant stressors and self-reported improvement in symptoms with medication masked his underlying condition of Persistent Depressive Disorder and delayed its diagnosis. With this underlying condition, his symptom severity would be the only discriminator between an additional diagnosis of MDD episode or Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. His depressed mood, difficulty focusing, low motivation, poor concentration, and diminished interested are consistent with MDD and Persistent Depressive Disorder. An additional diagnosis of ADHD isn’t supported as most symptoms are explained by his depressive diagnoses. The inability to complete assignments as a separate symptom isn’t sufficient to support an ADHD diagnosis especially because it would should have been an issue in high school which by all reports was not an issue. His Persistent Depressive Disorder existed prior to enrollment at West Point and the increased stress contributed to his more severe depressive episodes. In addition, his behavioral health diagnoses do not meet accession standards IAW AR 40-501. BOARD DISCUSSION: After review of the complete evidentiary record, including the applicant’s statement, the private medical advisory opinions, the ARBA Medical Advisory opinion, and supporting documents, the Board found insufficient evidence to grant the applicant’s requests for a physical disability discharge in lieu of academic discharge, relief from his service obligation, relief from educational benefit reimbursement debt, and the opportunity to earn his Bachelor of Science degree. 1. The Board agreed with the ARBA Medical Advisory Opinion that the applicant had a preexisting behavioral health condition that did not meet accession standards and his academic failure partly resulted from this preexisting behavioral health condition and not ADHD; an ADHD diagnosis is not supported by the complete evidentiary record. The Board noted the private advisory opinions that the applicant’s behavioral health conditions and ADHD resulted in his inability to complete his course work, but found the applicant has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that his behavioral health conditions caused him to fail medical retention standards prior to his separation from West Point. The Board determined that a greater weight of the evidence did not support a change to the discharge. 2. The Board also found that statements by classmates and cadre indicate the perception that the applicant intentionally failed academic requirements and that he did in fact fail two courses. The applicant’s records indicate he succeeded academically in High School and his High School academic record was sufficient for entrance into West Point. He was appropriate separated for academic program deficiency, transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve, and ordered to active duty. 3. Furthermore, on 16 December 2016, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army directed that the applicant be transferred to the USAR in the grade of E-4 for three years and the applicant failed to comply. While the applicant contends he was not given appropriate instructions / a point of contact to enlist, the Board found the 13 February 2017 order specifically instructed the applicant to report to his local Army Recruiting Station no later than 13 March 2017 and that failure to do so would result in the initiation of financial recoupment. The resultant recoupment action was the result of the applicant’s failure to report, and not his separation for academic reasons. Therefore, the Board found no basis on which to grant relief. 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. Army Regulation 210-26 (United States Military Academy (USMA)) provides direction and guidance for the general governance and operating policies of the USMA. a. Paragraph 4-6 states cadets of the USMA must meet the medical accession standards of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 2 (Physical Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction), for retention at USMA and for appointment as officers upon graduation. The Superintendent may, however, grant medical waivers for continuation at USMA, provided the cadet meets the retention standards of Army Regulation 40-510, chapter 3 (Medical Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation, Including Retirement). b. Chapter 5 provides guidance on graduation and commissioning. Paragraph 5-3 states: (1) First class cadets who have successfully completed the requirements of the course of instruction, including the Academic, Military, and Physical Programs, have maintained prescribed standards of conduct, and who have demonstrated proper moral-ethical qualities, leadership, and character may receive a diploma. These cadets will have earned the Bachelor of Science degree and will be designated as graduates of the USMA. (2) A cadet who is discharged or separated from the Academy under provisions of this regulation or for any other good cause, will not be graduated, awarded a diploma, or commissioned. However, when the Superintendent proposes that a cadet be separated for failure to meet medical retention standards under paragraph 4-6 of this regulation and when the Academic Board determines the cadet successfully completed all requirements of the Academic, Military, and Physical Programs, the Superintendent may approve graduation and the award of a diploma with a Bachelor of Science degree. Such a cadet will not be commissioned. If the medical separation is not approved, the cadet will be commissioned. c. Chapter 6 provides guidance on misconduct, honor, disciplinary, and other grounds for separation. (1) Paragraph 6-30 pertains to medically disqualified cadets and specifies whenever the Surgeon, USMA, determines that a USMA cadet does not meet the fitness requirements to perform all duties as a member of the Corps of Cadets during the current academic term or summer training period, or will not meet the medical fitness standards for appointment on active duty at the expected time of commissioning, the Superintendent will review the case and, at his discretion, take one of the following actions: . afford the cadet an opportunity to resign . recommend that, in the case of medical disqualification under cadet retention standards as provided in Army Regulation 40-501, the cadet be separated . for cadets of the first class, recommend they be retained and graduated if otherwise qualified, by being granted a waiver and commissioned . recommend that the cadet be discharged if physically disqualified for any military service . permit the cadet, upon his/her request, to complete the academic year in which the defect is noted and in those cases where the disqualifying defect is clearly remediable, continue for an additional period of time beyond the current academic year for further observation and treatment . grant leave without pay, at the cadet’s request, not to exceed 1 year, at which time the cadet will be reexamined to determine if the medical disqualification has been remediated . for those cadets with service obligations, who are deemed medically disqualified, the Superintendent will make recommendations for submission to the Department of the Army for final action, to include medical waivers (2) Paragraph 6-32a specifies cadets who are deficient in the Academic Program may be separated from the Academy or subject to other remedial action. d. Chapter 7 provides guidance on separations and Resignations. Paragraph 7-1 states cadets who enter the USMA directly from a civilian status assume a military service obligation of 8 years when they enter the USMA. (1) Paragraph 7-7 provides guidance on separation documents and states a cadet who has been separated and discharged under any provision of this regulation normally will be issued an Honorable or General Discharge Certificate unless Headquarters, Department of the Army, determines that the facts and circumstances of the case warrant issuance of a discharge of lower character. (2) Paragraph 7-9 pertains to breach of service agreement and reimbursement of educational costs. It states cadets who resign from the USMA, or who are separated from the USMA under the procedures contained in table 7-1 (Separations Deemed to Be a Breach of Service Contract), will be deemed to have breached their service agreement. Cadets separated from the USMA under procedures other than those contained in Table 7-1 may be deemed by the Superintendent to have breached their service agreement if the cadet’s failure to meet the standards for continued attendance at USMA or for commissioning resulted from a willful act or omission. (3) A cadet who voluntarily, or because of misconduct, fails to complete the period of active duty service specified by the Secretary in the cadet's agreement to serve may be required to reimburse the U.S. Government for educational costs pursuant to the law and implementing regulations. If the Secretary determines that such active duty service is not in the best interests of the Army, the cadet will be considered to have failed to complete the period of active duty and may be required to reimburse the government for educational costs. e. Table 7-1 lists the types of separations deemed to be a breach of service contract. Academic deficiency is not listed. 2. Army Regulation 612-205 (Appointment and Separation of Service Academy Attendees), provides instructions on the disposition of personnel records and on the separation of cadet candidates from the USMA. Table 3 (USMA Cadet Separation Policies) rule 7 states if the separation of the USMA cadet is started after commencement of the 4th academic year (senior year), then he/she will be transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve in grade of E4 for 3 years and may be immediately ordered to active duty for not less than 2 years. 3. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency is responsible for administering the Army physical disability evaluation system and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in chapter 61 and in accordance with DOD Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). a. Soldiers are referred to the disability system when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, as evidenced in an MEB; when they receive a permanent medical profile rating of 3 or 4 in any factor and are referred by an MOS Medical Retention Board; and/or they are command-referred for a fitness-for-duty medical examination. b. The disability evaluation assessment process involves two distinct stages: the MEB and PEB. The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member's injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his/her ability to return to full duty based on the job specialty designation of the branch of service. A PEB is an administrative body possessing the authority to determine whether or not a service member is fit for duty. A designation of "unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. Service members who are determined to be unfit for duty due to disability either are separated from the military or are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service. Individuals who are "separated" receive a one-time severance payment, while veterans who retire based upon disability receive monthly military retired pay and have access to all other benefits afforded to military retirees. c. The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//