IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 January 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220006420 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of her previous request for correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), to show her service was characterized as "Honorable" rather than "Uncharacterized." APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214, for the period ending 10 February 2000 FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number on 6 April 2021. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she was told she would receive an honorable discharge, but her DD Form 214 shows she received an uncharacterized discharge. This misprint on her DD Form 214 has limited opportunities for advancement in government jobs and her eligibility to join military sororities. She requested an upgrade of her discharge back in 2019, but never received a response. She indicated on her DD Form 149 that a condition of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is related to her request, but did not elaborate or provide any medical documentation in support of this contention. 3. On 18 October 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years. She was assigned to Fort Sill, OK for completion of Basic Combat Training (BCT). 4. DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Form) show the applicant was counseled on the following dates for the indicated reasons. She was repeatedly advised that failure to meet the standards set by the Army could and would result in administrative action being taken against her that could result in her being discharged from the Army. * 30 October 1999 – initial counseling on Army Values, policies, and standards * 30 October 1999 – Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) failure * 13 November 1999 – insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer (NCO) * 13 November 1999 – APFT failure * 15 December 1999 – APFT failure * 11 January 2000 – APFT failure * 11 January 2000 – failure to meet the BCT end of course standards 5. A DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 20 January 2000, shows the applicant underwent a Mental Status Evaluation that states: * she was evaluated at Community Mental Health Services for psychological issues and suicidality; she denied suicidal ideation * she presented with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood marked by significant impairment in social and occupational functioning * she appeared to be consumed with worry concerning family hardship problems, being a basic training failure, and the possibility of going home * her concerns would not allow her to meet the stressors and demands of the military lifestyle * she was likely to decompensate over time * as her desperation grew so would her unreliable behavior and poor judgement * she demonstrated no motivation to train; she would do anything to get out; suicide gestures were possible * she would be a continued drain on unity and medical resources; further enlistment would continue to impair unit morale and cohesiveness * she was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative or judicial action deemed appropriate by command 6. On 24 January 2000, the applicant's First Sergeant (1SG) counseled her regarding her unsatisfactory performance while in entry level status and her failure to adapt mentally, physically, and emotionally. The 1SG explained that her lack of motivation led to her failing. He advised the applicant that she had demonstrated actions that indicated that she no longer had the mental, emotional tolerance, and discipline it took to continue in the military. 7. On 25 January 2000, the applicant's battalion chaplain recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), Chapter 11. He explained the applicant's family was undergoing difficulties with two mental patients at home. Her mother had been taking care of the two patients, but her health was failing. Her mother needed her for moral support and to help her father and brother. 8. On 31 January 2000, the applicant's battalion command sergeant major counseled her because she had failed to adapt motivationally to the military. Her demonstrated character and behavior characteristics were not compatible with satisfactory continued service and clearly illustrated she did not possess the necessary intestinal fortitude required for retention in the military. 9. On 28 January 2000, the applicant's immediate commander notified her that he was initiating actions to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, for entry level status performance and conduct. As the specific reason, the commander cited the applicant’s lack of motivation, self-discipline, and willpower. He further advised the applicant that if her separation was approved, she would receive an entry level separation with uncharacterized service. 10. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification on the same date. She waived her right to consult with counsel and to make statements in her own behalf. She also elected not to have a separation medical examination. 11. The applicant's immediate commander formally recommended her separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11. The separation authority approved the separation recommendation on 2 February 2000. 12. Orders and the applicant's DD Form 214 show she was discharged on 10 February 2000. Her DD Form 214 shows she was credited with completion of 3 months and 23 days of net active service this period and contains the following entries in: * Item 24 (Character of Service) – Uncharacterized * Item 25 (Separation Authority) – Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11 * Item 26 (Separation Code) – JGA * Item 27 (Reentry Code) – 3 * Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – Entry Level Performance and Conduct 13. The applicant's record is void of evidence and she did not provide any evidence that shows she was diagnosed with PTSD or any other medical or behavioral health condition during her period of service. 14. Soldiers are considered to be in an entry-level status when they are within their first 180 days of active duty service. The evidence of record shows the applicant was in an entry-level status at the time of her separation. 15. Published guidance to the Boards for Correction of Military/Navy Records (BCM/NRs) clearly indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 16. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The applicant is reapplying to the ABCMR requesting correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), to show her service was characterized as "Honorable" instead of "Uncharacterized". She contends her separation was associated with PTSD. b. The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP). Pertinent to this advisory are the following: 1) She enlisted into the Regular Army on 18 October 1989; 2) DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Form) shows the applicant was counseled on the following dates for the indicated reasons. * 30 October 1999 – initial counseling on Army Values, policies, and standards * 30 October 1999 – Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) failure * 13 November 1999 – insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer (NCO) * 13 November 1999 – APFT failure * 15 December 1999 – APFT failure * 11 January 2000 – APFT failure * 11 January 2000 – failure to meet the Basic Combat Training (BCT) end of course standards c. She was repeatedly advised that failure to meet the standards set by the Army could and would result in administrative action being taken against her that could result in her being discharged from the Army; 4) On 28 January 2000, the applicant's immediate commander notified her that he was initiating actions to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, for entry level status performance and conduct; 4) she was discharged on 10 February 2000, under provisions of AR 635 – 200, Chapter 11. d. Military medical records reviewed included DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 20 January 2000, that showed the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood, marked by impairment in social functioning. The examiner noted, in part, that the applicant was consumed by family hardships and other concerns that would not allow her to meet the demands of a military lifestyle. She was cleared for any administrative or judicial action deemed appropriate by command. No other military medical records were available for review, no other military BH-related records were provided, and AHLTA was not reviewed as it was not in use during the applicant’s time in service. e. A review of the VA electronic medical record, JLV, showed the is 80 percent service-connected (SC) with a 70 percent SC diagnosis of PTSD related to traumatic incidents that reportedly occurred during BCT. As outlined in VA C&P Examination dated 18 November 2019, the applicant described traumatic experiences that occurred during BCT, that were characterized as follows; “the veteran reported that on 10/25/1999 in boot camp she was harassed by a drill Sargent. She was having difficulty in physical training, and she was feeling lightheaded, exhausted, and overheated with difficulty breathing. He yelled at her, refused her medical care, spit on her, and cursed at her. She reported that the abuse continued over time”. The examiner noted that the applicant endorsed additional symptoms of PTSD and upon completion of the examination the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD that was determined to be SC. f. The applicant appears to have first engaged the VA for BH-related care at the on 11 February 2020. A note dated 13 February 2020 noted the applicant’s psychosocial examination had been completed on 11 February 2020, however, this writer was unable to locate the encounter in JLV. The 13 February 2020 encounter noted the applicant had been previously diagnosed with PTSD and MDD. The examiner also noted the interview as challenging due to the applicant’s difficulty in communicating on some issues and refusal to discuss others. The applicant was informed of the different trauma-informed treatments available but refused trauma-related treatment, opting instead for treatment focused on depression. She also declined medication intervention during the encounter. Records suggest the applicant did not engage in BH-related treatment between 14 February 2020 and 23 November 2020 due conflicts between times the VA offered care and her work schedule. On 16 November 2020 the applicant was put on the waiting list for Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Depression (ACT-D) and enrolled in Anger Management Treatment during the interim to address issues with anger, irritability, and frustration. She attended 8 sessions of Anger Management between 24 November 2020 and 22 March 2021, successfully completing treatment. On 6 April 2021 she began ACT-D treatment and reported issues with mood swings, anhedonia, memory problems, depressed mood, and increased PTSD related symptoms. She requested medication management, in addition to ACT-D. She was diagnosed with MDD recurrent, PTSD by history, and was scheduled for outpatient follow-up for ACT-D and referral for outpatient medication management. Records suggests she remained in BH-related treatment at the VA through June 2021. g. According to the applicant her discharge was associated with PTSD. The applicant reported traumatic experiences during BCT characterized, in part, by “being harassed by a drill sergeant”. According to the applicant, she “was having difficulty in physical training, and she was feeling lightheaded, exhausted, and overheated with difficulty breathing”. The DS reportedly yelled at her, refused her medical care, spit on her, and cursed at her. She reported that the abuse continued over time. h. It should be noted that the applicant’s previous request to the Board (Docket Number) appear void of any mention of PTSD or traumatic experiences during BCT. Additionally, VA records also appear void of BH-related diagnosis or treatment prior to the C&P Examination, dated 18 November 2019. i. However, based on the available information and instructions outlined in the Liberal Consideration policy this advisor is compelled to find the applicant had a BH condition during her time in service that mitigates her separation determination. Kurta Questions: (1) Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate a discharge? Yes. The applicant is 70 percent SC for PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The condition is reportedly associated with trauma experienced during BCT. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The applicant was notified by her commander that she was being discharged via Chapter 11 of AR 635-100, due to her lack of motivation, self-discipline, and willpower. The applicant contends the discrepancies outlined above were secondary to trauma she experienced during BCT characterized by continued harassment, being yelled at, spit on, and denial of medical treatment for physical ailment. While there is no documents in the records supporting the claims of harassment and abuse, the VA diagnosed the applicant with PTSD and deemed it service connected. Given there is an association with PTSD and decreased motivation, there is a nexus between the diagnosis and the applicant’s misconduct and subsequent separation. If it is taken the events are factual, the issues of harassment and assault should have been addressed and the applicant should have been afforded an opportunity to received HH-related treatment. If the issue was addressed and care offered, it is reasonable to assume the applicant would have completed BCT and moved on to a follow-on assignment. Given the above, it is recommended the Board considers and upgrade to HD. BOARD DISCUSSION: The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, the applicant's record of service, the frequency and nature of the applicant's misconduct and the reason for separation. a. The applicant was discharged due entry level status performance and conduct. The commander cited the applicant’s lack of motivation, self-discipline, and willpower and advised her that if her separation was approved, she would receive an entry level separation with uncharacterized service. She completed 3 months and 23 days of net active service this period. b. The Board considered the medical records, any VA documents provided by the applicant and the review and conclusions of the advising official. The applicant contends the discrepancies outlined during her service were secondary to trauma she experienced during BCT characterized by continued harassment, being yelled at, spit on, and denial of medical treatment for physical ailment. There are no documents in the records supporting the claims of harassment and abuse; however, the VA diagnosed the applicant with PTSD and deemed it service connected. c. The Board did not concur with the medical advisory opinion finding that given there is an association with PTSD and decreased motivation, there is a nexus between the diagnosis and the applicant’s misconduct and subsequent separation. If the events are factual, the issues of harassment and assault should have been addressed and the applicant should have been afforded an opportunity to received treatment. If the issue was addressed and care offered, it is reasonable to assume the applicant would have completed BCT and moved on to a follow-on assignment. d. The applicant completed did not complete training and was not awarded an MOS. She completed 3 months and 23 days of net active service this period. An uncharacterized discharge is appropriate in her case. 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. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the separation codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. At the time, this regulation prescribed the separation code "JGA" as the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, based on entry level performance and conduct. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 3 provides that a separation will be described as entry level with uncharacterized service if the Soldier has less than 180 days of continuous active duty service at the time separation action is initiated. b. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. c. Paragraph 3-9, in effect at the time of the applicant's separation, provided that a separation would be described as entry level with uncharacterized service if processing was initiated while a Soldier was in an entry-level status, except when: (1) a discharge under other than honorable conditions was authorized, due to the reason for separation and was warranted by the circumstances of the case; or (2) the Secretary of the Army, on a case-by-case basis, determined a characterization of service as honorable was clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty. This characterization was authorized when the Soldier was separated by reason of selected changes in service obligation, for convenience of the government, and under Secretarial plenary authority. d. Chapter 11 provides for the separation of personnel because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both) while in an entry-level status. When separation of a Soldier in an entry-level status is warranted by unsatisfactory performance or minor disciplinary infractions (or both) as evidenced by inability, lack of reasonable effort, or failure to adapt to the military environment, he or she will normally be separated per this chapter. Service will be uncharacterized for entry-level separation under the provisions of this chapter. e. The character of service for Soldiers separated under this provision would normally be honorable, but would be uncharacterized if the Soldier was in an entry-level status. An uncharacterized discharge is neither favorable nor unfavorable; in the case of Soldiers issued this characterization of service, an insufficient amount of time would have passed to evaluate the Soldier's conduct and performance. 3. The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) issued guidance to Service Discharge Review Boards and Service BCM/NRs on 25 July 2018, 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 court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. 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, Boards 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// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220006420 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1