ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 August 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180002964 APPLICANT REQUESTS: a. correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show: * her character of service as honorable * her separation program designator (SPD) code as JFR * her narrative reason for separation as physical disability, not existing prior to service b. a personal appearance hearing before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) * DD Form 214 * Medical Records REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR considers individual applications that are properly brought before it. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing (sometimes referred to as an evidentiary hearing or an administrative hearing) or request additional evidence or opinions. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 3. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a stated an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. Paragraph 3-9 stated a separation will be described as an entry-level separation with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in an entry-level status. c. Chapter 11 provided for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance or conduct, or both, while in an entry-level status. When separation of a Soldier in entry-level status is warranted by unsatisfactory performance or minor disciplinary infractions, or both, as evidenced by an inability, lack of reasonable effort, or failure to adapt to the military environment, the Soldier normally will be separated per this chapter. This policy applied to Soldiers who were in an entry-level status and, before the date of the initiation of separation action, had completed no more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty or initial active duty training or no more than 90 days of Phase II under a split or alternate training option; and: (1) demonstrated they were not qualified for retention because they could not or would not adapt socially or emotionally to military life, or because they: (a) could not meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline; or (b) demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service; and (2) failed to respond to counseling. d. The glossary defined entry-level status for Regular Army Soldiers as the first 180 days of continuous active duty or the first 180 days of continuous active duty following a break of more than 92 days of active military service. 4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes), in effect at the time, prescribed the specific authorities, reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. The appendix shows Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, as the regulatory authority for the narrative reason of entry-level performance and conduct and the appropriate SPD code as JGA. 5. Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations – Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents that are prepared for individuals upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It established standardized policy for preparing and distributing DD Form 214. The instructions for completing the DD Form 214 stated for: * item 24 (Character of Service) – characterization or description of service is determined by directives authorizing separation * item 25 (Separation Authority) – enter the regulatory or other authority cited in the directives authorizing the separation * item 26 (Separation Code) – enter the proper SPD code representing the specific authority for separation * item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – enter the narrative reason for separation as shown in Army Regulation 635-5-1 based on the regulatory or other authority 6. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief 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. 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. FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame as provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b); however, the 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 she excelled in almost all drills and activities during basic training. She was a platoon leader and a fireguard, and tutored and assisted others in her battalion. She was never reprimanded and there were never any mental or behavioral issues. a. Toward the end of basic training, she developed shin splints which turned into stress fractures in her right hip, right knee, and both shins. This prevented her from passing the running portion of the final Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). She followed all of the doctor's instructions while on medical restriction, but she was still unable to successfully complete the running portion of the APFT. She attempted several times; however, her knee kept giving out, resulting in failing the final APFT. She was informed that she would not be permitted to transfer to advanced individual training to attempt to pass the APFT. If she wanted to stay in basic training, she would have had to stay in medical hold for months until she healed to try to pass the running portion of the APFT. b. At that time, she had a 4-year-old son at home and everyone involved agreed that a long medical holdover was not an option. Upon transferring to medical hold, she was told she could void her enlistment, go home to heal, and reenlist after a certain length of time as long as she could pass the medical board examination. c. During out-processing, she was told she would be given a certain reenlistment code (should read separation code) of JGA, which would require her to be evaluated by a medical board to obtain a waiver to allow her to reenlist. d. Her uncharacterized discharge is preventing her from applying for Federal government employment. She would like to be recognized as a veteran because her performance and behavior in basic training was exemplary. Her physical injuries prevented her from passing the final APFT. 3. She enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 November 1993 and was assigned to Fort Jackson, SC, for basic combat training. 4. The DA Form 4856 (General Counseling Form), dated 16 November 1993, shows she received her initial basic training counseling from her drill sergeant, Staff Sergeant H____, and was informed her of graduation requirements. The standards would be demanding physically, mentally and emotionally. To graduate from basic combat training, she must complete all mandatory training, qualify with the M16A1/A2 rifle, pass the basic physical fitness test, and pass the end-of-cycle individual proficiency test. She indicated she understood the requirements for graduation and had no personal problems that the drill sergeant needed to know about that may affect her performance. 5. The DA Form 4856, dated 22 November 1993, shows she was counseled by her drill sergeant, Staff Sergeant H____, for not shining her boots. She was counseled on her inability to maintain established standards of personal appearance and individual area maintenance. This type of behavior indicates a serious lack of motivation, self- discipline, and total disregard for rules and regulations. She indicated she concurred with the information. 6. The DA Form 4856, dated 10 December 1993, shows she was counseled by her drill sergeant, Staff Sergeant C____ for failing to meet the minimum firing standard for basic rifle marksmanship during period 7, which is a requirement for graduation from basic training and advancement to advanced individual training. She fired a 19, which is below the minimum standard of 22. She indicated she concurred with the information. 7. The DA Form 4856, dated 11 December 1993, shows she was counseled by her drill sergeant, Staff Sergeant C____ for failing to meet the minimum firing standard of 27 for basic rifle marksmanship during period 8 by firing 12. She indicated she concurred with the information. 8. The DA Form 4856, dated 17 December 1993, states the applicant was counseled by her drill sergeant, Staff Sergeant C____ for not shining her boots. She indicated she concurred with the information. 9. The two additional DA Forms 4856, dated 17 December 1993, show she was counseled by her drill sergeant, Staff Sergeant C____, at the end of phase II. She was informed that her performance was fair. During this phase she had not exhibited the qualities necessary to complete basic training. She failed the Diagnostic Physical Readiness Test. She performed 0 push-ups to standard and did not perform the 2-mile run due to a limiting physical profile. She was assigned to a Remedial Physical Training Group to provide her with extra time to work on her area/areas of weakness. Her continued failure could result in her separation from the service. She indicated she concurred with the information. 10. Her DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard) shows on: * 19 November 1993 – she scored 8 points for push-ups, 45 points for sit-ups, and 0 points for the two-mile run – she fell out of (failed to complete) the run and was taken to the hospital * 30 November 1993 – she scored 24 points for push-ups, 44 points for sit-ups, 57 points for the two-mile run * 17 December 1993 – she scored 0 points for push-ups, 53 points for sit-ups, and 0 points for the 2-mile run – she had a limiting physical profile 11. The DA Form 4856, dated 5 January 1994, shows she was counseled by her drill sergeant, Staff Sergeant H____, for missing her laundry bag. She indicated she concurred with the information. 12. On an unspecified date, the applicant’s first sergeant referred her to the Community Mental Health Service for evaluation in connection with his recommendation for her administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, for her failure to adapt. 13. On 28 January 1994, a mental status evaluation of the applicant was conducted. a. She reported that she was feeling anxious, depressed, had difficulty sleeping, was crying, and had nausea. She reported a past psychiatric history. She also reported her poor academic and job performance history. She stated she had no desire to train or be a Soldier. b. The examining behavioral science specialist stated her examination revealed anxiety and depression. There were insufficient emotional findings to warrant the diagnosis of a major depressive disorder. Her thought content and thought processes revealed no disturbance in reality testing to justify a psychotic diagnosis. Her intellectual functioning did not appear impaired, nor were there deficits to suggest a physical illness affection the brain. She denied suicidal ideation or intent at the present time. c. The diagnostic impression was adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features. Adjustment disorders are the result of an individual's difficulty in adapting to a specific external stressor. The disorder is likely to recur in future stressful situations, particularly in combat. This limits the applicant's potential as a Soldier and could pose a danger to the applicant and the applicant's unit in a combat situation. This diagnosis does not warrant discharge through medical channels. Her potential for successful completion of military service was considered poor. d. The examining behavioral science specialist strongly recommended her immediate removal from training with no further physical or verbal stress, and her separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11. e. She was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative or judicial action deemed appropriate by her command. 14. The DA Forms 4856, dated 28 and 31 January 1994, show she was counseled by Sergeant First Class C____ and First Sergeant H____. She was informed that she was being recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, because of her inability to function as a Soldier in a stressful environment. She indicated she concurred with the information. 15. The Processing Summary Sheet shows she was being processed for elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, for her diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features. She currently had a limiting physical profile until 10 February 1994. 16. The memorandum from the Commander, Company D, 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment, 1st Basic Combat Training Brigade, dated 28 January 1994, subject: Proposed Separation Action under the Provisions of Entry-Level Status Performance and Conduct, recommended the applicant's separation for her adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11. The applicant was advised of her rights. 17. The DA Form 4856, dated 1 February 1994, shows she was counseled by her immediate commander. She was informed she was recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, by the Community Mental Health Agency. She was diagnosed as having an adjustment disorder, which will not allow her to continue military service. She indicated she concurred with the information. 18. On 1 February 1994, she acknowledged notification of the proposed separation action. She declined to consult with consulting counsel and to make a statement in her own behalf. She did not request a separation physical. She acknowledged she understood if the proposed separation was approved, she would receive an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service. She further understood she was ineligible to apply for enlistment in the U.S. Army within 2 years after her separation. 19. The memorandum from the Commander, Company D, 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment, 1st Basic Combat Training Brigade, dated 1 February 1994, subject: Proposed Separation Action under the Provisions of Entry-Level Status Performance and Conduct, recommended the applicant's separation for an adjustment disorder under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11. She was not new-started (recycled) due to her inability to adapt to military life because her adjustment disorder had rendered her unsuitable for continued service. This problem would not allow her to meet Army standards. 20. The memorandum from the Commander, 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment, 1st Basic Combat Training Brigade, dated 1 February 1994, subject: Proposed Separation Action under the Provisions of Entry-Level Status Performance and Conduct, recommended the applicant's discharge for an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features that had rendered her unsuitable for continued service. Her inability to adjust to military life would not allow her to meet Army standards. 21. The memorandum from the Commander, 1st Basic Combat Training Brigade, dated 4 February 1994, subject: Proposed Separation Action under the Provisions of Entry- Level Status Performance and Conduct, approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11. The brigade commander directed characterization of her service as uncharacterized. 22. She was discharged on 11 February 1994. She completed 3 months and 3 days of net active service during this period. Her DD Form 214 shows in: * item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) – Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) * item 24 (Character of Service) – Uncharacterized * item 25 (Separation Authority) – Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11 * item 26 (Separation Code) – JGA * item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – Entry-Level Performance and Conduct 23. The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the applicant’s supporting documents. There were no records for review in Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS), the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS) and the VA's Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV). The applicant contends that shin splints in her right hip, right knee and both shins turned into stress fractures and prevented her from passing the running portion of the final PT test in Basic Training. It is noted that while some General Counseling was directly due to inability to pass physical fitness standards (17Dec1993), the applicant also received General Counseling that did not appear to be directly attributable to the lower body issues with stress fractures. For example: Boots not shined (22Nov1993; 17Dec1993); Weapons Qualification (10Dec1993, 11Dec1993); Missing Laundry Bag (05Jan1994). It is also noted the applicant had trouble with the push up portion of the APFT. The applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotional Features on 28Jan1994 with some suggesting that mental health issues preceded military service. It was recommended the applicant be removed from training immediately and be separated under provisions AR 635-200, chapter 11. She was psychiatrically cleared to be separated. The examiner opined that when she was removed from training, her symptoms should resolve. The 31Jan1994 General Counseling indicated the applicant was recommended for separation due to inability to adjust to an environment that requires discipline, attention to detail and teamwork. IAW AR 40-501, the Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotional Features did not meet procurement standards because it interfered significantly with the performance of duty. The condition did not warrant separation through medical channels. Concerning the orthopedic conditions: The Right Shin Stress Fracture diagnosed by the 09Dec1993 bone scan, was healing per 01Apr1994 note. The Right Knee Pain due to tripping on a curb 09Jan1994 showed a normal film-no fracture, no stress fracture. The Right Ankle Stress Fracture sustained after tripping on a curb was found on bone scan 09Jan1994, just one month prior to separation. The in-service records did not show treatment for a hip condition. IAW AR 40-501, medical evidence is insufficient to support that any of these conditions failed procurement standards or warranted separation through medical channels. Although review of available records does not support that the orthopedic conditions were the direct cause of the applicant’s separation from military service; there may have been some minor impact on her emotional state from experiencing physical pain due to the orthopedic conditions. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After review of the application and all evidence, including the applicant’s statement and the ARBA Medical Advisory Opinion, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to grant relief. The applicant attended BCT and was on active duty for three months, 3 days before separating. The governing regulation provides that a separation will be described as an entry-level separation, with service uncharacterized, if the separation action is initiated within the first 180 days of service, while a Soldier is in entry-level status. There is insufficient medical evidence to support that any of the applicant’s claimed conditions failed procurement standards or warranted separation through medical channels. The Board found that although there may have been some minor impact on her emotional state from experiencing physical pain due to the orthopedic conditions, this was not deemed unfitting at time of discharge. As such, the applicant’s DD Form 214 properly shows her service as uncharacterized, with a proper narrative reason. 2. An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier’s military service. It merely means the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : 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. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180002964 10 1