IN THE CASE OF BOARD DATE: 11 April 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210013055 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * Upgrade of his uncharacterized character of service to honorable * Amendment of his reentry (RE) code to "RE-1" (fully eligible for reentry) * Change of his separation code (SPD) to "FJ or FL" APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * Online version of DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge) in lieu of DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 293 in lieu of DD Form 149 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Inpatient Transition and Discharge Instructions (unreadable by available software) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records: Claims Incident Thereto). However, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states, in effect, while he was on active duty, military doctors misdiagnosed him and, for the past 15 years, their error has made it impossible for him to transition into civilian life. a. A 9 June 2021 court ruling confirmed the applicant is "severely mentally ill" with schizophrenia and severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); as a result, he is 100 percent, permanently disabled due to medical conditions he incurred through no fault of his own and with no prior conditions. The applicant affirms he "cannot function with civilians or humans in general, except possibly military personnel", and he discloses those conditions nearly cost him his life. b. The applicant contends he deserves an honorable character service, along with full Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits; the opportunity to reenlist (he hopes to join the U.S. Air Force); and full disability benefits with severance pay. He argues, "I believe I was wronged due to possible negligence and incompetence by my superiors and without fault of my own. I believe I should still be allowed to rejoin the military if I desired, despite permanent disability with an honorable discharge, because I was misdiagnosed by my doctors and deserve full Veterans benefits through the VA program and others." "You broke me and never tried fixing me other than sabotaging me and my money with my negligent and incompetent superior's laziness and carelessness destroying my military and civilian careers through no fault of my own. My government failed me and I deserve justice." 3. The applicant's service records show that, on 2 June 2005, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Army for 6 years; he was 18 years old. a. Orders transferred the applicant to Fort Jackson, SC for initial entry training, and he arrived on or about 2 June 2005. b. The applicant's separation packet is not available for review; however, his service record includes his DD Form 214, which shows the following: * Item 11 (Primary Specialty) – "NONE//NOTHING FOLLOWS" * Item 12a (Date Entered AD (active duty) This Period – "2005/06/02" * Item 12b (Separation Date this Period) – "2005/06/30" * Item 12c (Net Active Service this Period) – "0000/00/29" * Item 12d (Total Prior Active Service) – "000/00/00" * Item 12e (Total Prior Inactive Service) – "0000/00/00" * Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) – "NONE//NOTHING FOLLOWS" * Item 14 (Military Education – ,"NONE//NOTHING FOLLOWS" * Item 23 (Type of Separation) – "DISCHARGE" * Item 24 (Character of Service) – "UNCHARACTERIZED" * Item 25 (Separation Authority) – Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-11 (Separation of Personnel who did not Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards) * Item 26 (Separation Code (SPD)) – "JFW" * Item 27 (RE Code) – "3" (waiver required for reentry) * Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – "FAILED MEDICAL/PHYSICAL PROCUREMENT STANDARDS" 4. The applicant contends military doctors failed to diagnose him properly, after which the Army discharged him with an uncharacterized character of service. a. The absence of the applicant's separation packet means we are unable to determine the specific circumstance(s) that led to his discharge. However, because his service records contain his DD Form 214, and the DD Form 214 states the reason and authority for his separation, the Board must presume the applicant's leadership properly completed his discharge action. This presumption notwithstanding, the absence of the separation packet constitutes an administrative irregularity; the regulation governing the management of military personnel records (AR 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resources Records Management)) requires all supporting documents for an approved separation action to be maintained in the affected Soldier's official military personnel file (OMPF). b. During the applicant's era of service, AR 635-200 stated commanders were to separate Soldiers who were determined not to be medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards. Within the Soldier's first 6 months of active duty or initial active duty for training, medical authorities were required to convene proceedings (i.e. an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD)) to determine the Soldier's fitness. These proceedings were to establish the following, that: * medical authority had identified the disqualifying medical condition(s) within 6 months of the Soldier's initial entry on active duty * the condition(s) would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the Soldier from entry into military service, had they been detected earlier; and * the medical condition did not disqualify him/her for retention in military service c. Effective 1 October 1982, a revision of AR 635-200 mandated that Soldiers separated while in an entry-level status received an uncharacterized character of service. (1) For RA Soldiers, entry-level status terminated 180 days after the Soldiers' continuous active duty service. (2) On a case-by-case basis, the Secretary of the Army, or designee, could direct the issuance of an honorable character of service, when clearly warranted by unusual circumstances that involved the Soldier's personal conduct and/or duty performance. d. The ABCMR is unable to grant requests for upgraded characters of service solely to make the applicant eligible for Veterans' benefits; however, in reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition, his arguments and assertions, and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency guidance. 5. With regard to the applicant's eligibility for a disability separation with severance pay: a. AR 40-400 (Patient Administration), chapter 7 (Military Personnel Physical Disability Processing), then in effect, stated medical evaluation boards (MEB) were convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations, insofar as his/her duty was affected by the Soldier's medical status. Referral to an MEB only happened when the Soldier presented problematical or controversial aspects, and for cases where there was a regulatory requirement for MEB action. (1) Situations requiring an MEB included: * Soldiers for whom physical evaluation board (PEB) referral was contemplated for other than Temporary Disability Retired List periodic examinations * Soldiers with medical conditions or physical defects that were usually progressive in nature and for whom medical authority did not hold an expectation of a reasonable recovery; and * Soldiers whose medical fitness for return to duty was questionable, problematic, or controversial (2) MEBs referred Soldiers to a PEB when they failed medical retention standards, as described in AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). b. AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for identifying medical conditions that required referral to an MEB. Medical authority referred Soldiers to an EPSBD when the Soldiers failed the medical procurement standards, as outlined in chapter 2 (Physical Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction) of the regulation; Soldiers were evaluated to an MEB when their medical condition(s) did not meet the standards of chapter 2 or chapter 3 (Medical Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation, Including Retirement). c. PEBs made fitness determinations; AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), in effect at the time, stated the mere presence of impairment did not alone justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. In each case, it was necessary to compare the nature and degree of the physical disability with the requirements of the Soldier's duties, as required by his/her office, rank, grade or rating. (1) Physicians were responsible for providing a thorough and prompt evaluation of a Soldier when his/her medical condition made it questionable as to whether he/she could perform his/her duties. (2) Unit commanders were charged with reflecting in a Soldier's evaluation report any physical defects which impacted that Soldier's duty performance, and commanders were also to refer the Soldier to the servicing medical treatment facility when they believed the Soldier was unable to perform the duties of his/her office, grade, rank, or rating. 6. Concerning the applicant's request to change his SPD and RE codes: a. AR 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program), in effect at the time, covered eligibility criteria for entry and reentry into the Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard. (1) Table 3-1 (U.S. Army Reentry Eligibility Codes) shows the following: * RE-1 applies to Soldiers completing their term of active service who are considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army; they are qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met * RE-3 applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable; they are ineligible unless a waiver is granted (2) Paragraph 4-5 (Waiver Requirements for Medical Disqualifications) stated any applicant with prior military service who a Component of the Armed Forces separated due to medical disqualification required a waiver to reenter the Regular Army. b. AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, referred DD Form 214 preparers to AR 635-5-1 (SPD) for completing items 26 (SPD Code) and 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation). c. AR 635-5-1 (SPD), in effect at the time, stated the SPD and narrative reasons for separation were linked to the discharge authority. Soldiers separated under paragraph 5-11 received the SPD "JFW"; their DD Forms 214 were required to show "Failure to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards" as the narrative reason for separation. 7. MEDICAL REVIEW: The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s military service records. A review of the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) & Health Artifacts Image Solutions (HAIMS) indicates he was evaluated on 14 Jun 2005, 12 days after joining the Army. He was diagnosed with Depression. The full report was not available as it was in his hardcopy military medical record which was not available for review. Per his DD214, his depression was determined to exist prior to his service and did not met accession standards. A review of JLV indicates the applicant completed a Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination on 1 Nov 2021. He reported that he suffered from depression through his adolescence. He reported his father and grandmother were diagnosed with Schizophrenia. He reported attending college and working in construction. He stated that a service member had a seizure in July 2005 and died from it. The examiner noted a depressed mood with no evidence of hallucinations, delusions or perseverations. The examiner confirmed a diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder. The examiner evaluated the applicant for PTSD and stated that he did not meet criteria for PTSD. The applicant received a service connected disability rating of 70% for Schizoaffective Disorder. The applicant asserts diagnoses of Schizophrenia and PTSD but did not provide any medical documentation of these diagnoses for review. In accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Secretary of Defense Liberal Guidance Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017, Clarifying Guidance there is documentation to support a behavioral health diagnosis at the time of his discharge. He did not meet accession standards but did not disclose his history of depression during his entrance physical. His reentry code is correct due to his psychiatric diagnoses requiring a waiver to reenlist. His separation code is correct due to medically disqualifying condition. Military medical disability/retirement is not warranted as he did not meet medical criteria to enlist. His character of service is uncharacterized due to only serving 29 days. No change is warranted. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents and the evidence found within the military record, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board reviewed and considered the opinion of the Agency Medical Advisor. The Board concurred with the advisory. Based on a preponderance of evidence available for review, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): Not Applicable REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, 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 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. AR 635-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for enlisted administrative separations. It provides: a. An honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance. b. Effective 1 October 1982, a revision of AR 635-200 mandated that Soldiers separated while in an entry-level status received an uncharacterized character of service. For USAR Soldiers, entry-level status began with their enlistment, and terminated 90 days after the USAR Soldier started advanced individual training. On a case-by-case basis, the Secretary of the Army, or designee, could direct the issuance of an honorable character of service, when clearly warranted by unusual circumstances that involved the Soldier's personal conduct and/or duty performance. c. Paragraph 5-11 stated commanders were to separate Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment. Within the Soldier's first 6 months of active duty or initial active duty for training, medical authorities were required to convene proceedings (i.e. an Entrance Physical Standards Board) to determine the Soldier's fitness. These proceedings were to establish the following, that: * medical authority had identified the disqualifying medical condition(s) within 6 months of the Soldier's initial entry on active duty or active duty for training * the condition(s) would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the Soldier from entry into military service or entry on initial active duty for training, had they been detected earlier; and * the medical condition did not disqualify him/her for retention in military service 3. 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 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. 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. 4. AR 15-185 (ABCMR), states the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which means the Board presumes what the Army did was correct. 5. AR 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resources Records Management), in effect at the time, required all supporting documents for an approved separation action to be maintained in the affected Soldier's official military personnel file (OMPF). 6. AR 40-400 (Patient Administration), in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for the referral of Soldiers to an MEB. Chapter 7 (Military Personnel Physical Disability Processing) stated MEBs were convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations, insofar as his/her duty was affected by the Soldier's medical status. Referral to an MEB only occurred when the Soldier presented problematical or controversial aspects, and for cases where there was a regulatory requirement for MEB action. a. Situations requiring an MEB included: * Soldiers for whom physical evaluation board (PEB) referral was contemplated for other than Temporary Disability Retired List periodic examinations * Soldiers with medical conditions or physical defects that were usually progressive in nature and for whom medical authority did not hold an expectation of a reasonable recovery; and * Soldiers whose medical fitness for return to duty was questionable, problematic, or controversial b. MEBs referred Soldiers to a PEB when they failed medical retention standards, as described in AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). 6. AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for identifying medical conditions that required referral to an MEB. Paragraph 2-2c (Application and Responsibilities – Scope) stated medical authority referred Soldiers referred to an EPSBD when the Soldiers failed the medical procurement standards outlined in chapter 2 (Physical Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction) of the regulation. The medical authorities referred Soldiers to an MEB when their medical condition(s) did not meet the standards of chapter 2 or chapter 3 (Medical Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation, Including Retirement). 7. AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), in effect at the time, established the Army Disability Evaluation System (DES), and implemented chapter 61 (Retirement or Separation for Physical Disability), Title 10, U.S. Code. It set forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that governed the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. Chapter 3 stated the mere presence of impairment did not alone justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. In each case, it was necessary to compare the nature and degree of the physical disability with the requirements of the Soldier's duties, as required by his or her office, rank, grade or rating. 8. AR 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program), in effect at the time, covered eligibility criteria for entry and reentry into the Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard. (1) Table 3-1 (U.S. Army Reentry Eligibility Codes) shows the following: * RE-1 applies to Soldiers completing their term of active service who are considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army; they are qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met * RE-3 applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable; they are ineligible unless a waiver is granted (2) Paragraph 4-5 (Waiver Requirements for Medical Disqualifications) stated any applicant with prior military service who a Component of the Armed Forces separated due to medical disqualification required a waiver to reenter the Regular Army. 9. AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, referred DD Form 214 preparers to AR 635-5-1 (SPD) for completing items 26 (SPD Code) and 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation). 10. AR 635-5-1 (SPD), in effect at the time, linked both the SPD and narrative reasons for separation to the discharge authority. Soldiers separated under paragraph 5-11 received the SPD "JFW"; their DD Forms 214 were required to show "Failure to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards" as the narrative reason for separation. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210013055 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1