IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 January 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210006538 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * Change his uncharacterized character of service to honorable * Amend the narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) from "Personality Disorder" to "Secretarial Authority" * Revise the separation (SPD) code listed on his DD Form 214 to show "JKK" (Secretarial Authority) (sic, should be "JFF") * Per Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), Section 1553 (Review of Discharge or Dismissal), that the Board include a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist as a member, and that the Board give the applicant's case priority consideration and an expedited final decision APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 * Extract from the Federal Register FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed Forces), 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. Through counsel, the applicant requests the Board include a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist as a member, and that the Board give the applicant's case priority consideration and an expedited final decision; counsel cites Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), Section 1553, which exclusively governs the Army Discharge Review Board, and is not applicable to the ABCMR. Nonetheless, an Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) medical advisor will evaluate the applicant's case and provide input for the Board's consideration. 3. Counsel states the merits of the applicant's case warrant a review, and counsel offers arguments as to why the Board should waive the statutory 3-year time limit. Counsel goes on to submit the following: a. Statement of Facts. (1) The applicant entered the military while in college. He had grown up in south Los Angeles during the 1980s, at the height of the cocaine epidemic and with rampant street crime and gang violence all around him. By entering the military, the applicant believed he would find a better life, and he aspired to enter the medical field; to the applicant, the Army offered learning opportunities, as well as a potential future not otherwise available in his community. (2) At first, on his arrival for basic combat training (BCT) at Fort Jackson, SC, the applicant confronted what seemed like chaos and disarray; nonetheless, the applicant adapted without incident to the training, strict routines, and the expectations of his new culture. However, the applicant's acclimation to Army life was short-lived when, after about a month, a group of large men gave the applicant a "blanket party." As the applicant slept, this group put a thick wool blanket over him and started beating him about the head and body with hard blunt objects and fists; he was unable to move or defend himself. The applicant never learned the identities of the culprits who gave him this hazing. (3) As the days passed, it became apparent to the applicant that certain recruits (in particular, two large white men) sought to establish dominance over others; those two white recruits harassed the applicant (who is African American), and they called him derogatory names and alluded "accidents" that might happen on the firing range. These two white recruits also falsely accused the applicant of possessing contraband (cigarettes) as a way of diverting attention away from their own misconduct. The harassment turned physical when the two white recruits assaulted the applicant at least three times, in a sexual manner, while in the communal shower. The applicant had joined the Army to escape the organized violence he had endured in his home city; now the applicant was again facing verbal and physical abuse, and it only served to put the applicant on edge. (4) The two white recruits started targeting a smaller Soldier (Private First Class (PFC) T__), and the applicant observed the large men routinely jostle that smaller recruit. Ultimately, PFC T__ took his own life, using a gun during training, and the shock of this unfortunate incident caused the applicant to fear for his own safety; the applicant reasoned, "if that could happen to another person, what was to stop [the applicant] from being a victim of an 'accident' or ongoing sexual assaults." Not long after, the harassment escalated, and the applicant's situation became unbearable. (5) Feeling helpless to stop the hazing, the applicant told his commander that he too was having suicidal thoughts; the commander responded by taking away the applicant's weapon and referring the applicant to the psychiatric ward. After several days in the ward, and ten minutes with an entourage of men in white jackets, the applicant declared he wanted out of the Army; one member of the entourage quickly replied he could "write it up" as if the applicant was never there. The applicant now understands the man's comment to mean he would use the "personality disorder method to discharge [the applicant] from the Army." Counsel notes there were no further conversations about other mental health conditions that the applicant might have, and no one addressed whether the applicant had experienced trauma, either before or after enlisting. b. Request for Relief Based on Error. (1) Counsel provides arguments regarding standards of review and refers to "Secretary of the Army Memorandums to the ABCMR in the late 1970s which involved retroactive application of certain Army Regulations (AR) and Personality Disorders." Citing two previous ABCMR cases (Docket Numbers AR20140000645 and AR20190002194), counsel points out policy changes to AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) that required: * the basis for a determination of character of service to rely solely on a Soldier's current enlistment; * the stipulation that a physician training in psychiatry make the personality disorder diagnosis; * the retroactive application of the revised policies; and * that the presence of a personality diagnosis was sufficient to justify the upgrade to fully honorable, unless there were clear and demonstrable reason why not to do so (2) While the applicant's separation was based on a later version of AR 635-200 than discussed in the foregoing ABCMR cases, counsel asserts the circumstances of the applicant's personality disorder separation remain suspect. (a) First, the applicant spent only about ten minutes with medical specialists. Because of the applicant's brief time in the Army, "there were not yet sufficient treatment military records, as required, to determine his character of discharge." In addition, no one ever counseled the applicant, in writing, about his personality disorder diagnosis, and "there was no consideration of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) and other co-occurring mental illnesses." (b) Second, even assuming the "men in white jackets" were qualified to make a diagnosis, they did not have enough time. Counsel points to a Special Regulation (subsequently superseded by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)) for a definition of character and behavior disorders (now called personality disorders) and contends none of the traits or defects listed in the Special Regulation applied to the applicant. (c) Counsel argues, if the applicant had any psychiatric conditions, they would most likely have resulted from trauma associated with the intimidation, hazing, bullying, and sexual assault inflicted upon the applicant by the two white recruits. The applicant's motivation during this period was, once again, to escape a bad situation, in the spirit of self-preservation, not maladjustment. (d) Lastly, if, for argument's sake, one assumes the medical specialists properly diagnosed the applicant, the aforementioned policies, with regard to characterization of service for personality disorder, should entitle the applicant to an honorable discharge. The applicant committed no misconduct, he got along with his peers (apart from those who assaulted him), and he would probably have remained in the Army, were it not for the malfeasance of others. c. Request for Relief Based on Injustice. One of the Board's standards of review is injustice, which entails "considering all the factual circumstances surrounding an applicant's history and service record, as well as current service policy...." The applicant had to endure "unspeakable cruelty" at the hands of other recruits. Those other recruits targeted smaller trainees (like PFC T__) and the applicant (perhaps due to the applicant's race). After sustaining at least three sexual assaults in the shower, and following PFC T__'s death, the thought of remaining in the Army was too much for the applicant. The applicant sought separation for his own defense and safety, not because of any deviance on his part. "Had the command been aware of these matters, or had they not occurred, [the applicant] would have been able to perform his military duties without difficulties or barriers." d. Counsel concludes by stating the Board should issue the applicant an honorable character of service. Counsel argues procedural errors occurred; had procedures been following, the applicant's leadership should have ensured the applicant "received a proper and thorough medical evaluation, (was given) a complete review of in-service treatment records, and that qualified physicians made a diagnoses (sic). The taint on [the applicant's] DD Form 214 is obvious, readable by others, and is erroneous under his circumstances, both in procedure and equity." 4. The applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214. He additionally provides an extract from the Federal Register, dated 27 April 1979, which published an 8 February 1979 memorandum by the then Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASA, M&RA); the ASA, M&RA's memorandum addressed policy changes pertaining to Soldiers diagnosed with personality disorders. The applicant offers further details of his experiences in the Army in a self-authored statement: a. The applicant describes growing up in South Central Los Angeles during the 1980s and the violence he witnessed at the height of the crack cocaine epidemic. He affirms he did not want to get involved in drugs and crime, and he instead pursued an education at a technical college, where he focused on biology. He felt that going into the Army was a good decision because it offered vocational training and other opportunities. b. Based on the credits he had earned at the technical college, he entered active duty as a PFC, and he had enlisted for an administrative military occupational specialty. On his arrival at Fort Jackson, he encountered "instant chaos"; a drill sergeant screamed orders, he and the other recruits got haircuts and shaves, and, the applicant commented, he was not used to this culture. He nonetheless went through the motions with no problems until the night unknown persons attacked him as he slept. c. Due to training being so tiring, he typically fell asleep as soon as his head hit the pillow. However, about a month into BCT, "I was attacked in the dead of night by what felt like four strong people, two on each side of me, holding me down and smothering my entire body and head with a standard large wool blanket. I felt hard objects and possibly fists pounding on (my) whole body and my head." "It seemed to go on without stopping until it suddenly did. I was in so much pain, I couldn't move to see who or what group of people did this. I learned this is what Soldiers call a 'blanket party.'" d. As the applicant continued in BCT, it became clearer to him that certain recruits were intent upon intimidating and bullying others. The applicant specifically mentioned a very tall, large, and heavy white man who he thought may have weighed 300 pounds. This recruit and another large white man seemed continually to try to exert their influence over the others, including the applicant; they routinely picked on a smaller white Soldier (PFC T__) and the called the applicant racist names, to include the "N" word. As a black man, the applicant felt increasingly unsafe when the two bullies talked about trainees getting shot in the back of the head during weapons qualification, calling it, "friendly fire." The applicant states he had left his neighborhood to get away from such violence, so hearing these comments served as a trigger. e. After the "blanket party," the two large white men attacked the applicant in the shower and tried to stick their fingers in the applicant's rear. Because of their size, the applicant could not easily fight them off. The applicant declares, "I knew the intimidation and fear was escalating and it was too much for me to continue on with the harassment. When we went into weapons training and received our M-16 rifles I was abundantly aware of danger and recalled their 'friendly fire' stories and mind games." Then, around June 1987, PFC T__ took his own life with a gun; the applicant did not know PFC T__ well, but he was in the same platoon and barracks as the applicant. After seeing what the two bullies had done to PFC T__, the applicant wondered to what lengths someone would go to escape such torment. f. After PFC T__'s death, the applicant did not want to go to the firing range; he did not want to be around people with guns. He felt he needed to get out and get help; he was desperate and started having thoughts of killing himself and others in his platoon. When the applicant disclosed he was thinking to his commander, the commander acted stunned. He immediately ordered the applicant to surrender his weapon and personally escorted the applicant to the base clinic, where they admitted him to the "psych ward." A "full-bird colonel and an entourage of white jackets came in to see me. I told him that I didn't want to be in the Army, and he told me he would 'write it up as if [I] was never here.' It took only ten minutes. I was never asked about my mental health condition, current or pre-existing." g. The applicant states he does not believe it is possible to diagnose a personality disorder in ten minutes. In addition, he never received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice. Had he remained in the Army, the applicant believes he would have continued to run into bullies and had more conflicts and assaults; as such, and as a matter of survival, he felt he had to leave the military. He contends he did not have a personality disorder; he was just trying to protect himself. h. For decades, he believed he had received an honorable discharge, but, in November 2020, he discovered the possible error or injustice as he checked on his eligibility for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. He did not know his DD Form 214 stated, "Personality Disorder" as the reason for his separation; he contends they gave him this diagnosis to get him out of the Army quickly. Since his discharge, he has experienced severe financial hardship, been homeless, and suffered from mental instability. He declares, "I can't ever forget what happened to me and PFC T__." 5. The applicant's service records show: a. On 6 May 1987, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Army for 3 years; he entered active duty in the rank/grade of PFC/E-3 and he was 24 years old. b. Orders transferred him to Fort Jackson for BCT, and he arrived at his BCT unit, on or about 9 May 1987. On 9 May 1987, using a DA Form 4856 (General Counseling Form), Staff Sergeant (SSG) D__ M. W__ counseled the applicant about the three phases of BCT, and indicated the applicant felt he would have no problems. On 29 May 1987, SSG W__ issued another counseling statement in which he reported the applicant had met all requirements for Phase I and was advancing to Phase II. c. On 2 June 1987, Captain D__ D. C__, Medical Corps, completed a DA Form 5181-R (Screening Note of Acute Medical Care) and wrote: "Pt states he will go to the range & shoot himself with an M-16 if not released from the Army. He is 'tired of all the Bull.'" d. On 3 June 1987, Doctor K__ V. D__ signed a DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation). In the remarks section, the doctor listed his diagnosis as, "301.70: Antisocial Personality Disorder." The doctor additionally stated, "Soldier's potential for successful completion of military service is considered poor due to his poor motivation for military service, attitude, personality, and manipulative behavior with threats of killing himself if not separated from the service." "This psychiatric diagnosis does not warrant discharge through medical channels. Soldier is psychiatrically cleared for any administrative or judicial action as deemed appropriate by command." e. On 4 June 1987, the applicant's BCT commander advised him, via memorandum, that he was initiating separation action against the applicant, under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-13 (Separation because of Personality Disorder). In explaining the specific reason for his proposed action, the commander pointed to the attached mental status evaluation, which showed a diagnosis of "Mixed Personality Disorder (DSM III (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition) Code 301.70 (Antisocial Personality Disorder)"; in addition, the commander cited the applicant's impulsive, disruptive behavior. The memorandum also noted, if the applicant was in an entry-level status (i.e. less than 180 days of continuous active duty), the applicant's service would be uncharacterized. The commander then addressed the applicant's rights, which included the right to consult with a Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer. f. On 4 June 1987, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his commander's separation notification and recorded his elections; the applicant affirmed he did not desire to: * consult with a JAG officer * submit statements in his own behalf * have a separation medical examination g. On 5 June 1987, the applicant's BCT commander submitted his recommendation to the separation authority; he stated, "In view of [applicant's] present psychiatric condition, separation would be the best course of action." h. On 9 June 1987, the separation authority approved the commander's separation recommendation and, because the applicant was in an entry-level status, directed the applicant receive an uncharacterized character of service. On 16 June 1987, orders discharged the applicant accordingly. i. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he complete 1 month and 11 days of his 3-year enlistment contract. The form additionally listed the following: * Item 24 (Character of Service) "Entry-Level Status" (i.e. uncharacterized) * Item 25 (Separation Authority) AR 635-200, paragraph 5-13 * Item 26 (SPD) "JFX" (Personality Disorder) * Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) "Personality Disorder" 6. The applicant requests the Board change his character of service to honorable and his SPD and reason for separation to show "Secretarial Authority." a. During the applicant's era of service, commanders were to initiate separation action against Soldiers diagnosed with a personality disorder that interfered with the assignment to or the performance of duty. (1) Paragraph 5-13, AR 635-200 defined personality disorder as a deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that interfered with the Soldier's ability to perform duty. A physician training in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis had to have established the personality disorder diagnosis, as described in DSM III. (2) The regulation authorized the commander to proceed with separation proceedings only if the physician's diagnosis concluded that the Soldier's personality disorder was so severe that it significantly impaired the Soldier's ability to function effectively in the military environment. In addition, commanders could not initiate separation action until he/she had formally counseled the Soldier as to his/her deficiencies and given the Soldier ample time to improve. (3) Per paragraph 5-13h, separation authorities were to characterize the Soldier's service as honorable, unless the Soldier was in an entry-level status; paragraph 3-9 (Uncharacterized Separations) required Soldiers in an entry-level status to receive an uncharacterized character of service. b. Effective 28 January 1982, Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 1332.14 (Enlisted Administrative Separations) established "entry-level status." (1) For active duty service members, entry-level status began on the member's enlistment and continued until either he/she had served 180 days of continuous active duty. (2) Effective 1 October 1982, AR 635-200 implemented the policies of DODD 1332.14 and added both "entry-level status" and the requirement for separation authorities to issue Soldiers uncharacterized characters of service when separation action had been initiated during the Soldier's entry-level status. The regulation additionally specified the Secretary of the Army, or designee, could grant a Soldier an honorable character of service, on a case-by-case basis, when clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of military duties. c. The applicant describes being hazed and bullied while in BCT; DOD had no explicit policies or procedures for defining and/or prohibiting these behaviors at the time the applicant was on active duty. (1) In January 2012, the Service Chiefs initiated a formal, coordinated action to create a posture of "Zero Tolerance"; in support of that initiative, Congress required, in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Service Secretaries to submit an initial report to Congress detailing their efforts to address hazing. On 7 February 2012, the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) published "Executive Summary on Hazing in the Military"; while this report included descriptions of hazing behaviors, it offered no standard definition for hazing and failed to address bullying. (2) On 23 December 2015, DOD issued a policy memorandum, titled "Hazing and Bullying Prevention Response in the Armed Forces"; the document direct each of the Military Departments and the National Guard Bureau to promulgate appropriate punitive regulations, and went on to offer enterprise-wide guidance on the prevention of hazing and bullying. The policy memorandum additionally included updated hazing and bullying definitions (along with examples of activities likely to be problematic) and requirements for ongoing education, tracking, and reporting. d. Section II (Secretarial Authority), AR 635-200, stated the Secretary of the Army had the prerogative to separate Soldiers for the convenience of the government; such a separation was accomplished only by the Secretary's authority and had to be based on the Secretary's determination that the separation was in the best interests of the Army. The regulation required Soldiers separated for the convenience of the government to receive an honorable, an under honorable conditions character of service, or an entry- level separation. e. Per AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designators (SPD)), in effect at the time, the narrative reason for separation was linked to the discharge authority. Soldiers separated under paragraph 5-13 received the SPD "JFX"; their DD Forms 214 were required to show "Personality Disorder" as the narrative reason for separation. (1) In the latest revision of AR 635-5-1, the SPD has changed to "JFV" and the narrative reason for separation is now "Condition, Not a Disability." (2) Should the Board elect to amend the applicant's separation authority to Secretarial Authority, it will also necessary to amend the narrative reason for separation and its associated separation program designator (SPD). According to the current AR 635-5-1, Soldiers involuntarily separated per Secretarial Authority receive the narrative reason for separation, "Secretarial Authority" and the SPD is "JFF." f. The ABCMR is not authorized 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. 7. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant s medical records in the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) and made the following findings and recommendations: Outside of the applicant s assertion of PTSD, documentation is void of a behavioral health evaluation, treatment notes, or a diagnosis since discharge for consideration. The applicant s in-service diagnosis of Personality Disorder is the only diagnosis rendered after an evaluation. While the evaluation for the in-service diagnosis is unavailable, ARBA assumes regularity. As such, documentation is insufficient to make a determination. However, the applicant asserts a MST in- service; digital penetration of his rectum during one assault. Per liberal consideration, the Board must consider the self-report of MST in making its determination. b. The applicant was discharged on June 1997 under Chapter 5-13, Personality Disorder, with an Uncharacterized status due to only serving for 1 month and 11 days. The applicant is requesting an Honorable characterization, narrative reason for separation change to Secretarial Authority, and separation code change. The applicant, through counsel and a self-authored statement, reports in-service traumas led to suicidality and a request to be discharged; physical assaults by fellow Soldiers, to include digitally penetration of his rectum on one occasion, and a fellow Soldier committing suicide after experiencing the same assaults. Moreover, after the suicide, the applicant states the harassment increased and he feared he d be the victim of an accident or ongoing sexual assaults. Further, counsel and the applicant contend his diagnosis was procedurally defective as he was diagnosed after ten minutes with a provider; however, the statements reflect the applicant spent several days on a psychiatric inpatient ward. c. Due to the period of service, electronic active duty medical records are void. The electronic packet contained a June 1987 acute care note indicating the applicant will go to the range and shoot himself with an M-16 if not released from the Army. He is tired of all the Bull-. A Chapter Mental Status Exam (MSE) indicated the applicant was diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder and recommended for separation. The paper records for the applicant s evaluation and treatment while on the psychiatric ward are unavailable. d. The applicant is not service connected. In August 2020, the applicant requested housing services. The applicant reported being street-homeless for approximately three months self-reported PTSD, Alcohol Disorder, and SUD (Substance Use Disorder) as reasons for his current homeless status. The applicant requested information for filing a service-connected claim after being informed he was ineligible for VA services. e. The applicant did not submit medical records for review. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicants request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical advisory opinion and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service, and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the medical records and the review and conclusions of the advising official. One possible outcome was to grant relief based upon the applicant s statement alleging sexual misconduct against him. However, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the majority of the Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors to overcome the reason for his early departure from service. The Board determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. 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 :SM : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : :GT :MB 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. 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, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge). An honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. Paragraph 3-9 (Uncharacterized Separations). Separation authorities were to describe a separation as entry-level, with service uncharacterized, if commanders initiated separation processing while a Soldier was in entry-level status. c. Section II (Secretarial Authority), AR 635-200, stated the Secretary of the Army had the prerogative to separate Soldiers for the convenience of the government; such a separation was accomplished only by the Secretary's authority and had to be based on the Secretary's determination that the separation was in the best interests of the Army. The regulation required Soldiers separated for the convenience of the government to receive an honorable, an under honorable conditions character of service, or an entry- level separation. d. Paragraph 5-13, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for separating members with a personality disorder. (1) Paragraph 5-13, AR 635-200 defined personality disorder as a deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that interfered with the Soldier's ability to perform duty. A physician training in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis had to have established the personality disorder diagnosis, as described in DSM III. (2) The regulation authorized the commander to proceed with separation proceedings only if the physician's diagnosis concluded that the Soldier's personality disorder was so severe that it significantly impaired the Soldier's ability to function effectively in the military environment. In addition, commanders could not initiate separation action until he/she had formally counseled the Soldier as to his/her deficiencies and given the Soldier ample time to improve. (3) Per paragraph 5-13h, separation authorities were to characterize the Soldier's service as honorable, unless the Soldier was in an entry-level status; paragraph 3-9 (Uncharacterized Separations) required Soldiers in an entry-level status to receive an uncharacterized character of service. 3. Effective 28 January 1982, Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 1332.14 (Enlisted Administrative Separations) established "entry-level status." a. For active duty service members, entry-level status began on the member's enlistment and continued until either he/she had served 180 days of continuous active duty. b. Effective 1 October 1982, AR 635-200 implemented the policies of DODD 1332.14 and added both "entry-level status" and the requirement for separation authorities to issue Soldiers uncharacterized characters of service when separation action had been initiated during the Soldier's entry-level status. The regulation additionally specified the Secretary of the Army, or designee, could grant a Soldier an honorable character of service, on a case-by-case basis, when clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of military duties. 4. AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designators (SPD)), in effect at the time, the narrative reason for separation was linked to the discharge authority. Soldiers separated under paragraph 5-13 received the SPD "JFX"; their DD Forms 214 were required to show "Personality Disorder" as the narrative reason for separation. In the latest revision of AR 635-5-1, the SPD has changed to "JFV" and the narrative reason for separation is now "Condition, Not a Disability." Soldiers involuntarily separated due to Secretarial Authority receive the narrative reason for separation, "Secretarial Authority" and the SPD is "JFF." 5. With respect to hazing and bullying in the military, historical accounts indicate some of the most harrowing experiences for Soldiers took place during BCT. There was a long history of sanctioned abuse reflected as early as the 1940s, and the abuse continued into the 1950s, when hazing during BCT was neither regulated nor discouraged. Robust military hazing studies have been sparse, with the most recent being published in 1992; although the 1992 study provided valuable insights, a glaring lack of information on the subject still existed in 2012. a. In January 2012, the Service Chiefs initiated a formal, coordinated action to create a posture of "Zero Tolerance"; in support of that initiative, Congress required, in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Service Secretaries to submit an initial report to Congress detailing their efforts to address hazing. b. On 7 February 2012, the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) published "Executive Summary on Hazing in the Military." While this report included descriptions of hazing behaviors, it offered no standard definition for hazing (resulting in each of the Armed Services assigning varying hazing definitions); in addition, the executive summary failed to address bullying. Further, the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) reported the absence of any databases recording reports of hazing or bullying in the military; as of 2012, none of DMDC's Status of Forces Surveys of Active Duty Members addressed either issue. (Both DMDC and DEOMI now conduct surveys that address bullying-like behaviors within the context of discrimination). c. In a DEOMI study, Technical Report No. 01-14, "Hazing: A Military Study," hazing was seen as serving three functions socialization, cohesion-building, and weeding out those unfit or unwilling to serve; a subsequent 2014 DOD survey revealed that male hazing was the most common type of sexual assault, but, in addition to sexual assault, other forms of violence also occurred. d. NDAA FY 2015 required the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to prepare a report outlining those DOD policies intended to prevent hazing, along with a description of the systems DOD was initiating to track hazing incidents within each of the Armed Forces. In February 2015, the GAO submitted its report to Congress outlining seven recommendations DOD needed to take in order to increase oversight of military hazing incidents; DOD concurred with all seven recommendations. e. On 23 December 2015, DOD issued a policy memorandum, titled "Hazing and Bullying Prevention Response in the Armed Forces"; the document directed each of the Military Departments and the National Guard Bureau to promulgate appropriate punitive regulations, and went on to offer enterprise-wide guidance on the prevention of hazing and bullying. The policy memorandum additionally included updated hazing and bullying definitions (along with examples of activities likely to be problematic) and requirements for ongoing education, tracking, and reporting. f. DOD Hazing Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces DOD Summary Report on Hazing in the Armed Forces Reporting Period: 23 December 2015 25 April 2016. This document gave a list of accomplishments and best practices that were reported for FY 2016 and included the establishment of a DOD Hazing and Bullying Prevention and Response Working Group; this working group, consisting of key DOD stakeholders, provided an opportunity to benchmark best practices, discuss enduring challenges, and alleviate potential pitfalls. The primary hazing focus areas and ongoing efforts of the working group included: definition, roles/responsibilities, reporting process, data collection and analysis, training, retaliation, and compliance. One of the key deliverables of the study was a "Commander's Guide to Hazing Prevention," which was intended for use by commanders as a tool to identify and respond to unit-level hazing incidents. g. FY 2017 NDAA legislated improvements in DOD's prevention efforts and response to hazing, and it required the establishment of a database for hazing incidents, the implementation of improved training about the negative effects of hazing, and the annual submission of reports about hazing to Congress. 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 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210006538 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEDING 1