IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 April 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180013777 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests to change his character of service from uncharacterized to honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: .DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) .DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) .Self-written statement FACTS: 1.The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, UnitedStates Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction ofMilitary Records conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in theinterest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2.The applicant states: a.He requests an honorable discharge due to the circumstances of his service timeand his inability to speak little English which caused his difficulties in the military such as stress and anxiety causing harassment from his superiors due to his lack of understanding the language. b.He believes the record to be in error as he was only in the United States for 2years and learned enough English in those 2 years to pass the “ASVAP” [ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Batter)] exam and got into the military. He just needed a chance but that opportunity was not afforded to him, and instead his command made his military existence miserable and placed him out of the service. Today, he has perfected the English language and he is almost at a Bachelor’s degree for psychology. He has had difficulties in life, work, and socially with this uncharacterized discharge. Please correct his discharge with an honorable character of service. c.He has occupational and social impairment due to his time in the service withreduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as anxiety condition, adjustment disorder, and personality disorder. All psychological stressors. RJK, major, “(medical certificate)” MC opined, "This service member is unfit for further military duty under existed prior to active duty service (EPTS) provisions. This service member has a psychiatric condition which predated entry onto active duty and is likely to continue throughout military service. This service member has received maximum hospital benefit, is mentally competent and able to manage financial affairs and can be discharge." This is a flawed statement. d.He was placed on a medical hold due to inadaptability; and at the time, he felt likea prisoner and that his life was over and he communicated and threatened that he would take his own life. Title 38 U.S. Code 1111 - Presumption of sound condition: For the purposes of section 1110 of this title, every veteran shall be taken to have been in sound condition when examined, accepted, and enrolled for service, except as to defects, infirmities, or disorders noted at the time of the examination, acceptance, and enrollment, or where clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrates that the injury or disease existed before acceptance and enrollment and was not aggravated by such service. His “veteran service” was during the period of 17 September to 17 December 1991. e.He underwent mental and physical abuse from superiors and other enlisted menin his command while in boot camp due to his lack of understanding of the English language as he had recently immigrated from Mexico. He was once choked by a private who appeared to hate him due to his lack of not understanding what was being communicated. The other private became angry and was bigger and stronger and held the veteran up against the wall for about 30 seconds. He still remembers his name which was Rally and he kept saying I'm going to “fuck you”. He doesn’t know if the other private intended to sexually assault him or beat him up but that is what he said. This incident and many like them caused him undue stress and hardship to this day. f.He should feel proud about serving in the military but instead he feels shame andembarrassment due to his experiences and largely due to the status of his separation which was documented as an uncharacterized discharge. He has had difficulties in his life trying to get employment and have had to settle with all laborious employment and finally having to settle for a career as a driver. He still has nightmares that interfere with a good night sleep. He feels like he is alone and he relives the attacks that he went through in boot camp. Title 38 CFR 3.302 - service connection for mental unsoundness in suicide, contains guidance stating, evidence of a mental condition is the act of suicide or a bona fide attempt is considered to be evidence of mental unsoundness. Therefore, where no reasonable adequate motive for suicide is shown by the evidence, the act will be considered to have resulted from mental unsoundness. 3.On 17 September 1991, at the age of 22, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Armyfor a period of 4 years. a.A Record of Military Processing (DD Form 1966 Series) shows him as anImmigrant Alien and Non-Immigrant Foreign Item 21-69 thru 21-70 (English Comprehension Level Test (ECLT)) shows "0 0" and his enlistment program option is listed as 9A, which means he was required to enlist for a certain amount of time based on standards applicable to his qualifications. b.His personnel qualification record shows he was a citizen of Mexico and had acivilian education of "high school equivalent, General MX (Mexico)." 4.On 24 September 1991, he reported to basic training (BCT) at Fort Leonard Wood,MO. His record contains an Army Physical Fitness Card that shows his scores for eachevent and a blank training record normally placed in the record complete with dates andscores for each basic skill area. 5.On 22 November 1991 he reported to Fort Lee, VA for advanced individual training(AIT) and on 30 November 1991 he reported to his training unit of assignment. 6.On 6 December 1991, a Personnel Action form shows his duty status was changedfrom "Present for Duty" to "Hospital." He was admitted to the hospital at Fort Lee, VA.His record is void of documents that show if this was "self-admission" or "commanddirected." 7.His record contains a Narrative Summary (NARSUM) for Medical Board that states: a.History of Present Illness: This 22 year old single white male attempted tocommit suicide at basic training [his record is void of a medical record with documents from entry into the Army and basic training]. He stuffed his gas mask full of papers and attempted to suffocate himself. He was brought in to see the Psychiatrist at that time, however, it was thought that he could return back to duty and finish his training. He has had sleep and appetite disturbance for greater than approximately one month and he has lost some weight. He feels depressed and bored. He feels like killing himself. He came into the Psychiatry Clinic here at Fort Lee, stating that if he has to return to duty to continue training, he will kill himself, he would rather die. He has difficulty speaking English and that this has been a problem with him throughout his military career. There is no associated alcohol or drug abuse. He states that he joined the Army to study but that he did not know what he was getting into. He has constant thoughts of depression and hurting himself and relates a history of poor adaptation to other social environments prior to joining the military. b.Past History. The past medical history is unremarkable [basically means thedoctor did not see anything abnormal or no abnormal findings that they know of in the history.] c.Physical and Mental Status Examination: A physical and mental statusexamination was performed on 6 December 1991. The mental status examination revealed the applicant to be alert and oriented to person, place, and time. His mood was depressed. His affect was sad and constricted. He was depressed looking. His insight and judgment were fair. His cognitive function, to include memory, was within normal limits. There was no suicidality at that present time, no “homicidality”, no paranoia, delusions, or hallucinations. d.Diagnosis. (1)Axis I. Adjustment disorder with depressed mood, moderate, chronic,manifested by sleep and appetite disturbance and suicide gesture in the past. Stress – moderate, military duty; predisposition – moderate, personality disorder; impairment for further military duty – marked; impairment for social and industrial adaptability – moderate; LD (line of duty): No, EPTS. (2)Axis II. Personality disorder not otherwise specified, chronic, manifested bydependent immature personality impairment for further military duty. Impairment for social and industrial adaptability – considerable; LOD: No, EPTS. (3)Axis III. Status post suicide attempt by asphyxiation during basic training, nomedical sequela [any abnormal condition that follows and is the result of disease, treatment, or injury, such as paralysis after poliomyelitis, deafness after treatment with an ototoxic drug, or scar formation after a laceration.] (4)Axis IV. Psychosocial stressor as above (5)Axis V – level of functioning in the past year has been 70 and currently 55. e.Recommendation. The service member is unfit for further military duty underEPTS provisions. The applicant had a psychiatric condition which predated entry onto active duty and is likely to continue throughout military service. This applicant had received maximum hospital benefit, was mentally competent and able to manage financial affairs and could be discharged. It is recommended that the applicant be separated as expeditiously as possible under EPTS conditions at the local level. The member should continue in outpatient psychotherapy once discharged from service. It was likely that if the applicant continued on active duty, additional psychiatric problems will ensue. 8.On 11 December 1991, Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings show theapplicant did not present views in his own behalf and after consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examination, the board found that the applicant had the following medical conditions/defect: .adjustment disorder with depressed mood, moderate, chronic, manifested bysleep and appetite disturbance and suicide gesture in the past; not in line ofduty and EPTS .personality disorder not otherwise specified, moderate, chronic, manifestedby dependent immature personality features; impairment for further militaryduty; not in line of duty and EPTS 9.The MEB recommended the applicant be discharge under the provisions of ArmyRegulation (AR) 635-40, Chapter 5 (EPTS Medical Conditions). The approvingauthority approved the findings and recommendation of the board, and the applicantagreed with the board’s findings and recommendation. 10.On 11 December 1991, the applicant submitted his request for separation and awaiver of physical evaluation board evaluation. His request for separation shows: a.He requested discharge from military service for physical disability based uponthe findings and recommendation of a MEB, which considered him unqualified for retention in the military service due to physical disability that was found to have existed prior to his entry into active service. The MEB found the disability neither incident to nor aggravated by his military service. b.He indicated that he had been fully informed and understood that he was entitledto the same consideration and processing as any other member of the United States Army separated for physical disability. He understood this included consideration of his case by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). However, he elected not to exercise this right. He also understood that the Veterans Administration (VA) would determine entitlement to VA benefits. c.If this application was approved, he understood that he would be separated byreason of EPTS physical disability. He also understood that he would receive a discharge in keeping with the character of his service, as decided by the officer designated to affect his separation. 11.The Medical Department Activity, Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer notifiedthe applicant’s command and stated in pertinent part: a.The applicant, a member of your command, has a physical disability that wasfound to have existed prior to entry service, (EPTS), neither incident to: nor aggravated by military service, and has been determined by competent medical authority to be an unfitting condition for continued active service pursuant to retention standards set forth in AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), Chapter 3, (Medical Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation, including Retirement). b.The applicant had been fully counseled and offered an expeditious dischargepursuant to the provisions of AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), Chapter 5 (Separation for Non-Service Aggravated, EPTS Conditions upon Soldier's Waiver of PEB Evaluation), and has requested separation from the military service by reason of an EPTS physical disability. c.Pursuant to the provisions of AR 635-40, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-4, suchdischarge may have been approved by a commander with special court-martial convening authority, and action will be taken to ensure that the soldier is expeditiously discharged from the service. d.The applicant would be provided with VA Form 21-526 (Veteran's Application forCompensation or Pension), to be forwarded to the VA Regional Field Office servicing the area in which the applicant would reside after separation from the service. 12.On 12 December 1991, the separation authority approved the applicant’s dischargeand directed he be released from active duty with service uncharacterized. 13.On 17 December 1991, the applicant was released from the hospital anddischarged. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of AR635-40, Chapter 5, by reason of “physical disability prior to entry on active duty –medical board”, with an “uncharacterized” character of service. 14.On 4 October 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicantwas properly and equitably discharged and denied his request for an upgrade of hisdischarge, stating the record does not support that his discharge was caused by lack ofEnglish fluency or the MEBD diagnosis was incorrect. a.The applicant requested relief and contended, in effect, he wasn't speakingEnglish when he joined the Army and was told he would be going to ESL school before training; however, he was never sent. He never disobeyed/ignored military regulations or orders. He feels the type of separation he received was unfair and improper because he has not and does not have any physical or mental disability, either prior to, during or after his service in the military. His sergeants knew he was getting more stress than other soldiers during basic training. His inability to communicate caused him so much confusion which resulted in stress. He was punished often because he wasn't understanding training like all the soldiers. b.The applicant provided a copy of his current education college transcripts andletter of reference form his employer that states the applicant has been employed with them and works well with his fellow employees, has an excellent rapport with both the passengers and general public. He seems genuinely concerned about what he can do to improve his job performance. He is a sincere person, always trying to improve both his and the company's image with the public. 15.The applicant states, in effect, he believed he was to attend the ESL training butinstead reported directly to BCT where the physical abuse and harassment started dueto his inability to understand English clearly which led to the stress that resulted in himbeing hospitalized 6 days after reporting to his AIT unit. As a result of his hospitalizationhe underwent an MEBD and was referred to a PEB, however, he waived the PEB andrequested to be discharged for Physical Disability (EPTS). a.He states that, prior to enlisting, he had recently emigrated from Mexico andunderwent physical and mental abuse from superiors and other enlisted men while in BCT due to his lack of understanding the English language. He was choked by a peer [Rally] who appeared to hate because he couldn't' understand what was being communicated; he was held up against a wall and was told "I'm going to f___ you!" The applicant was unsure if that meant he was going to get beat up or sexually assaulted. This incident and others like it caused him an immense amount of stress. 1)AR 601-210, provides an "applicant" is a person who applies for voluntaryenlistment and found eligible to further process after completing and signing the DD Form 1966 Series and the Statement of Enlistment. It states: (a)Applicant processing should ensure that all applicants accepted forenlistment have the required qualifications, to include identifying those applicants who speak English as a second language, to include those who are not native English speakers who have resided in the United States less than one year. Applicants were to be identified and informed they would be taking the ECLT at the MEPS station. Those who scored 69 or below on the ECLT would be required to take English language training prior to initial entry training (IET). (b)Upon completion of applicant processing the next phase is MEPSprocessing functions administered by MECOM Personnel and guidance counselors. It states that the guidance counselor will insure all applicants who speak English as a second language and who still experience difficulty in conversing in and understanding English are properly identified and take the ECLT. The guidance counselor will inform those applicants who score 69 or below they will receive English training as the Defense Language Institute, English Language Center. Those applicants scoring 0-39 will be enlisted for 4 years regardless of the MOS for which enlisting. Those who score 40-69 will have no additional requirements beyond those normally placed upon any other applicant in the same test score category. 2)His military personnel records jacket shows: (a)His home of record as Mexico where he also completed his secondaryschool requirements and contains the forms required by regulation to be considered an applicant for enlistment, however, although he was identified as a person who is not a native English speaker he was not given the ECLT as required by regulation. (b)His DD Form 1966 Series: 1)Identifies him as an Immigrant Alien and Non-Immigrant ForeignNational and item 21-69 thru 21-70 (ECLT Score) shows "0 0" which, according to regulation, indicates he was not given the ECLT. 2)The enlistment program option he enlisted for shows as "9A", whichindicates he was required to enlist for a number of years based on his qualifications and Army Standards; his enlistment contract shows he enlisted for a period of 4 years. AR 601-210 states those applicants scoring 0-39 on the ECLT will be enlisted for 4 yearsregardless of the MOS for which enlisting; While the system of record the Army utilizedat the time of his enlistment is not available for review of requirements applicable to hisenlistment; based on his MOS and today's standards he would have only been requiredto enlist for 2 years. (c)The required statement of service in his record is applicable to enlistmentinto the Delayed Entry Program and does not include the below ESL Enlistee statement; however, in the event his record did provide a Statement of Enlistment the statement is informational only and not used as a method to identify ESL training as mandatory to the applicant based on their ECLT results. "ESL Enlistee. I understand that I will be required to undergo English language training at the Defense Language Institute, English Language Center… and that failure to attain an ECLT score of 70 by completion of training will result in separation from the Army." (d)Additionally, his record shows he qualified in marksmanship/grenadeand contains an Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard that shows he worked diligently to achieve the Army physical standards during BCT; and his record is void of a completed BCT training record that provides dates of completion and scores of his basic skills, to include information under the Basic Skills Education Program, applicable to those members who speak English as a second language. (e)The applicant's statement regarding ESL training in his initial applicationsubmitted to the ADRB is consistent with regulatory guidelines and his understanding of what was supposed to have occurred for him upon enlistment. b.The available evidence shows that although he was identified as a foreignnational that he was not given the ECLT. The Army provided clear processes for persons who are not native born English speakers to take the ECLT prior to becoming an eligible applicant to enter the service. The DLIELC states the ECLT is the primary instrument used for measuring the English language reading and listening proficiency and is a pre-requisite qualification for entry into the military services for non-native speakers of English. 16.In regards to the applicant’s contention that the recommendation rendered on hisNARSUM is a flawed statement, he was placed on medical hold due to inadaptability;he felt like a prisoner and that his life was over and communicated and threatened hewould take his life. a.AR 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of soldiers who may beunfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. It states the NARSUM is the MEBD heart of the disability evaluation system. Incomplete, inaccurate, misleading, or delayed NARSUM's may result in injustice to the Soldier or the Army. b.The available evidence contained a separation packet which provides a medicalNARSUM with the following characteristics: (1)The History of Present Illness provides the applicant had difficulty speakingEnglish as a problem in the military, states the applicant is a white male, but does not provide facts that he is a native of Mexico who recently emigrated. It also provides the applicant attempted to commit suicide in BCT, was seen by a psychiatrist and released back to training, but the medical officer completing the NARSUM does not identify the source of the information (from the applicant or verified by review of medical records). His record is void of medical records/documents from the time he entered the service and BCT; the applicant completed BCT in Fort Leonard Wood, MO and was hospitalized approximately 6 days after reporting to his unit of assignment at Fort Lee, VA. (2)The applicant's NARSUM is missing a required statement. According toregulation when a soldier is diagnosed with a mental disorder, the NARSUM must include a statement indicating whether the soldier is mentally competent for pay purposes and capable of understanding the nature of, and cooperating in PEB proceedings. The applicants NARSUM only states, "This service member has received maximum hospital benefit, is mentally competent and able to manage financial affairs and can be discharged." It does not explicitly address, "…and capable of understanding the nature of, and cooperating in PEB proceedings." (3)According to regulation the NARSUM will not reflect a conclusion ofunfitness. Therefore, diagnosis must not be qualified by such terms as "unfitting," "disqualifying," "ratable," or "not ratable." The applicant's NARSUM shows a conclusion that states he is "unfit" and that "he should be separated as expeditiously as possible under EPTS conditions." 17.Army Regulation 635-200 provides that uncharacterized service is applicable ifseparation processing is initiated while a soldier is in entry level status, except under thefollowing circumstances, to include but not limited to, when the Secretary of the Armydetermines the characterization as honorable because clearly warranted by thepresence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance ofduty. c.In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, hisservice record, and his statements in light of the published guidance regarding liberal and clarifying consideration and on equity, injustice, or clemency. 18.The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supportingdocuments and the applicant’s available records in the Armed Forces HealthLongitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) and the VA’s Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV)and made the following findings and recommendations: a.No hard copy military medical records or civilian medical documentation was provided for review. In his ABCMR application, the applicant contends that the treatment he endured while in the Army made him unadaptable for military service. He states he was harassed by other service members because he could not speak English. This harassment, according to the applicant, caused him stress and anxiety. In his application, he states: “I have occupational and social impairment due to my time in the service with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as: anxiety condition, adjustment disorder, personality disorder…R. J. K., Major, (medical certificate)MC opined, ‘This service member is unfit for further military duty under EPTS provisions. This service member has a psychiatric condition which predated entry onto active duty and is likely to continue throughout military service. This service member has received maximum hospital benefit, is mentally competent and able to manage financial affairs and can be discharge [sic]’.” b.Review of the electronic military medical record (AHLTA) indicates that it containsno information regarding the applicant as the applicant’s time in service preceded the introduction of this system. Review of the VA electronic medical record (JLV) indicates that it, also, contains no content regarding the applicant. c.After reviewing all the available documentation, it is the opinion of the Agencypsychiatrist that there is insufficient evidence available to support the applicant’s contention that he suffered from a stress-related disorder while on active duty. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1.After review of the application, medical advisory, and all evidence, the Boarddetermined there is insufficient evidence to grant relief. The governing regulationprovides that a separation will be described as an entry-level separation, with serviceuncharacterized, if the separation action is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-levelstatus. The Board considered the review and conclusions of the medical advisingofficial and the medical proceedings in the applicant’s records. The Board found thatthe applicant was evaluated by medical officials and his condition was determined tohave existed prior to service and when he was separated he remained in an entry-levelstatus. As such, and based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determinedthat his DD Form 214 properly shows his service as uncharacterized. 2.An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier’smilitary service. It merely means the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough forhis or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. As a result, thereis 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 : XXX :XX :XXX 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.Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of militaryrecords must be filed within three 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 three-year statute oflimitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2.AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides information on medical fitnessstandards for induction, enlistment, appointment, and retention and related policies andprocedures. a.Chapter 1 states medical fitness standards cannot be waived by medicalexaminers or by the examinee. Examinees reported as medically unacceptable by reason of medical unfitness when the medical fitness standards in chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 apply, may request a waiver in accordance with basic administrative directive governing the basic administrative directive governing the personnel action. b.Chapter 2 prescribes the medical conditions and physical defects which arecauses for rejection for military service and specifies for those for applicants enlisting in the Regular Army with medical conditions or physical defects predating original enlistment, these standards are applicable for the enlistee's first 6 months of active duty. (1)Paragraph 2-33 lists personality, behavior, or academic skills disorders asevidenced by frequent encounters with law enforcement agencies, antisocial attitudes or behavior, which while not sufficient cause for administrative rejection, are tangible evidence of impaired characterological capacity to adapt to military service. Personality or behavior disorders where it is evidenced by history, interview or psychological testing that a degree of immaturity, instability, personality inadequacy, impulsiveness or dependency will seriously interfere with adjustment in the Army; (2) Specific academic skills disorders secondary to organic or functional mental disorders sufficient to impair capacity to read and understand at a level acceptable to perform military duties; and (3) Suicide, history of attempted suicide or serious suicidal gesture. b. Chapter 3 gives the various medical conditions and physical defects which may render a member unfit for further military service. It provides all enlisted members of the RA, USAR, ARNG, those members found to have an service EPTS medical condition or physical defect that should have precluded original enlistment , but not listed in this chapter , see chapter 2. Members with conditions listed in this chapter will be evaluated by a medical board and will be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board. Members who have one or more of the conditions listed in this chapter will be referred to a PEB. (1) Adjustment disorders as transient, situational maladjustments due to acute or special stress do not render an individual unfit because of physical disability, but may be the basis for administrative separation if recurrent and causing interference with military duties; and (2) Personality disorders may render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability. Adjustment disorders transient, situational maladjustments due to acute or special stress do not render an individual unfit because of physical disability, but may be the basis for administrative separation if recurrent and cause interference with military duty. 3. Diagnostic and Statistical manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders provides the five axes are: a. Axis I: Clinical Disorders, which includes, but is not limited to the following; . disorders diagnosed in infancy, childhood or adolescence (Autism, ADHD, etc.) . Mental disorders due to a general medical conditions . Schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders . Mood disorders (Depression, Bipolar) . Anxiety disorders . Adjustment disorders b. Axis II: Personality Disorders and Mental Retardation. (Examples) . Personality Disorders (Paranoid, borderline, antisocial, dependent) . Mental retardation c. Axis III. General Medical Condition. Lists general medical (physical) concerns that may have a bearing on understanding the client's mental disorder, or in the management of the client's mental disorder. d. Axis IV: Psychosocial and Environment Problems. Lists the following problems to include, but not limited to: . Problem with the primary support group (divorce, abuse, deaths, births, etc.) . Problems related to social environment (retirement, living alone/friendship, etc.) . Educational problems (illiteracy, academic problems, conflict w/teachers) . Housing problems (homelessness, unsafe neighborhood, problems w/neighbors) . Problems with access to healthcare . Economic problems e. Axis V: Global Assessment of Functioning. This is a number from 1-100 that reflects the caregivers judgment of the overt level of functioning. A general outline of the level is: Number Definition 100 No symptoms 90 Minimal symptoms, good functioning 80 Transient symptoms that are expected reaction to psychosocial stressors 70 Mild symptoms OR some difficulty in social occupational or school functioning 60 Moderate symptoms OR moderate difficulty in social occupation or school functioning 50 Serious symptoms OR any serious impairment in social occupation or school functioning 40 Some impairment in reality testing or communication OR major impairment in several areas such as work or school, family relations, judgment, thinking or mood 30 Behavior is considerably influenced by delusions or hallucinations OR serious impairment in communication or judgment OR inability to function in almost all areas 20 Some danger of hurting self or others OR occasionally fails to maintain minimal personal hygiene OR gross impairment communication 10 Persistent danger of severely hurting self or others OR persistent inability to maintain minimal personal hygiene OR serious suicidal act with clear expectation of death 4. AR 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program) governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army and the U.S. Army Reserve. Table B-1 provides a list of required documents for enlistment processing or composition of enlistment packets. It shows the following forms are mandatory for non-prior service applicants: . DA Form 3286 Series (Statements for Enlistment) . DA Form 3286-59 Statement of Enlistment (Delayed Entry Program) a. Chapter 5 (Processing Applicants) notes that an "applicant" is a person who applies voluntarily for enlistment into the Regular Army or U.S. Army Reserve and is found eligible for further processing after completing and signing the DD Form 1966-Series and the DD Form 398-2. (1) Paragraph 5-1 (Importance of Applicant Processing) states processing is usually the applicant's first personal introduction. If courtesy, tact, efficiency, and integrity prevail in this first contact, the applicant will have reason to believe the decision to enlist in the Army was a wise one; Applicant processing should ensure that all applicants accepted for enlistment have the required qualifications to include identifying those applicants who speak English as a second language; this includes all non-prior service applicants form Puerto Rico. Additionally all others whose record indicates that they are not native English speakers who have resided in the United States Less than one year – (1) Inform identified applicants that they will be taking an English Comprehension Level Test (ECLT) at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). (2) Advise all identified applicants who score 69 or below on the ECLT will be required to take English language training prior to initial entry training (IET). \ (3) Table 5-1 (Instructions for completing the DD Form 1966-Series (Record of Military Processing) shows for item 21-69 thru 21-70 provides the ECLT Score –Enter appropriate score 00-99; if applicant did not take the ECLT leave blank (score 100–enter 99) b. Chapter 6 (MEPS Processing Phase) provides policy and guidance for those functions that are administered at MEPS by MEPCOM personnel and guidance counselors. Section II (Guidance Counselor Processing Phase) prescribes the responsibilities and procedures to be followed by the guidance counselor during the enlistment process. It provides the guidance counselor will: (1) Insure all applicants who speak English as a second language and who still experience difficulty in conversing in and understanding English are properly identified and take the ECLT. The guidance counselor will inform those applicants who score 69 or below they will receive English training as the Defense Language Institute, English Language Center. (2) Those applicants scoring 0-39 will be enlisted for 4 years regardless of the MOS for which enlisting. Those who score 40-69 will have no additional requirements beyond those normally placed upon any other applicant in the same test score category. c. Figure 9-6 (Sample DA form 3286-67, Statement of Enlistment (Army Policy) shows in paragraph 4b. ESL Enlistee. I understand that I will be required to undergo English language training at the Defense Language Institute, English Language Center, Lackland, Air Force Base, Texas and that failure to attain an ECLT score of 70 by completion of training will result in separation from the Army. d. Provides enlistment option "9A," applicants must enlist for the minimum term of enlistment authorized. 5. The Defense Language Institute, English Language Center (DLIELC) site provides the ECLT is the primary instrument used for measuring the English language reading and listening proficiency. The ECL may also be used as a criterion in the recruitment of US military personnel who are not native speakers of English, or in the determination of their eligibility for commissioning, attending specific courses or holding certain jobs. The ECL is also used for US military personnel who are non-native speakers of English, as a prerequisite qualification for entry into the military services. This testing is generally conducted by Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS). 6. AR 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. a. Chapter 2 provides the major objective of the standards is to achieve uniform disposition of cases arising under law. The retention standards and guidelines should not be interpreted to mean that possessing one or more of the listed conditions or physical defects signifies automatic disability retirement or separation from the Army. The overall effect of all disabilities present in a soldier whose physical fitness is under evaluation must be considered. The effect will be considered both from the standpoint of how the disabilities affect the soldier's performance and the requirement imposed on the Army to maintain and protect him or her during future duty assignments. b. Chapter 3 provides, according to accepted medical principles, certain abnormalities and residual conditions exist that, when discovered, lead to the conclusion that they must have existed or have started before the individual concerned entered the military service. c. Chapter 4 provides the military treatment facility (MTF) commander having primary medical care responsibility will conduct an examination of a soldier referred for evaluation and advise the soldier's commander. If it appears the soldier is not medically qualified to perform duty, the MTF commander will refer the soldier to a medical evaluation board (MEBD). MEBD's are convened to document a soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the soldier's status. If the MEBD determines the soldier does not meet retention standards, the board will recommend referral to a physical evaluation board (PEB). (1) The Narrative Summary (NARSUM) is the MEBD heart of the disability evaluation system. Incomplete, inaccurate, misleading, or delayed NARSUM's may result in injustice to the Soldier or the Army. A correlation must be established between the soldier's medical defects and physical disabilities. (2) The date of onset of a medical impairment may be questionable because of relatively short military service and the nature of the impairments, for example, a mental disease. If so the NARSUM should address the results of the inquiry into the pre-service background (family, relatives, medical and community) of the soldier in sufficient detail to overcome substantive question concerning the date of onset. (3) When a soldier is diagnosed with a mental disorder, the NARSUM must include a statement indicating whether the soldier is mentally competent for pay purposes and capable of understanding the nature of, and cooperating in PEB proceedings. (4) NARSUM will not reflect a conclusion of unfitness. Therefore, diagnosis must not be qualified by such terms as "unfitting", "disqualifying", "ratable", or "not ratable". d. The PEBLO will advise the soldier of the results of the MEBD. The soldier will be given the opportunity to read and sign the MEBD proceedings. If the soldier does not agree with any item in the MEBD report or NARSUM, he or she will be advised of appeal procedures. Neither the PEBLO nor the attending medical personnel will tell the soldier that: . The soldier is medically or physically unfit for further military service; . The soldier will be discharged or retired from the Army because of physical disability. . A given percentage rating appears proper . A LD decision is final (unless approval has been obtained) e. The MEBD will recommend referral to a PEB those soldiers who do not meet medical retention standards and will not refer soldiers to a PEB who request discharge under the provisions of chapter 5. f. The PEB (informal/formal) voting members make findings and recommendations and determines whether the soldier is physically fit or unfit to perform duties, whether the disability is permanent in nature or meets the criteria established by law for compensations. g. Chapter 5 of this regulation provides for separation of an enlisted soldier for non-service aggravated EPTS conditions when soldier requests waiver of PEB evaluation. This chapter is applicable to enlisted Soldiers on active duty for more than 30 days. Separation under the authority of this chapter is not to be confused with separation under the provisions of AR 635-200 (Personnel Separation – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 5 which provides for the involuntary separation within the first 6 months of entry onto active duty for failure to meet medical procurement fitness standards. If the time period exceeds 6 months or if the condition is disqualifying under AR 40-501, Chapter 3, the soldier is entitled to a PEB or may waive evaluation. (1) Case must meet the following conditions: . Soldier is eligible for referral into the disability system . Soldier does not meet medical retention standards as determined by a MEBD . disqualifying defect or conditions existed prior to entry on current period of duty and has not be aggravated by such duty . The soldier is mentally competent . Knowledge of medical condition would not harm the soldier's well being . Further hospitalization or institutional care is not required . After being advised of the right to a full and fair hearing, the soldier still desires to waive PEB action. . Soldier has been advised that a PEB evaluation is required for receipt of Army disability benefits, but waiver of the PEB will not prevent applying for VA Benefits. (2) The PEBLO will inform the soldiers of the rights and conditions; if the soldier declines the opportunity to be discharged the PEBLO will notify the commander. If the soldier requests discharge, the PEBLO will assist the soldier in preparing the request for Discharge for Physical Disability and forward the request to the MEBD and the commander for processing. (3) Commanders authorized to effect the discharge will process it expeditiously. Unless otherwise indicated, the soldier will be issued an honorable or under honorable conditions (general) discharge in each case. If the soldier is an entry level status at the time of processing the separation document may describe service as uncharacterized (See AR 635-200, Chapter 3). 7. AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations, Enlisted Personnel) sets policies, standards, and procedures to insure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of soldiers for a variety of reasons. It provides: (a) A separation will be described as an entry level separation with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a soldier is in entry level status, except under the following circumstances, to include but not limited to, the Secretary of the Army, on a case-by-case basis, determines the characterization 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. (b) The separation of enlisted personnel is the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army and will be effected only by his authority. Except as delegated by these regulations or by special Department of the Army directives, the discharge or release of any enlisted member of the Army for the convenience of the Government will be at the Secretary’s discretion and with the type of discharge as determined by him. Such authority may be given either in an individual case or by an order applicable to all cases specified in such orders. 8. On 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 9. On 25 August 2017 the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD; traumatic brain injury (TBI); sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Standards for review should rightly consider the unique nature of these cases and afford each veteran a reasonable opportunity for relief even if the sexual assault or sexual harassment was unreported, or the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years later. Boards are to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge. 10. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. a. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. b. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//