IN THE CASE OF:  
 
  BOARD DATE: 13 July 2023 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230000300 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: upgrade of her uncharacterized discharge to honorable. 
 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
 
• DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge) 

• DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 

• Department of Veterans Affairs Letter (two) 


 
FACTS: 
 
1.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b); 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 she intended to serve her four years and longer. Now she has a medical condition and needs her characterization of service to be honorable. She did not deserve or cause this, which she must live with forever. 
 
3.  On her DD Form 293, the applicant notes post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and sexual assault/harassment, as contributing and mitigating factors in the circumstances that resulted in her separation. 
 
4.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 August 2007 for 4 years and 22 weeks. She did not complete required training and was not awarded a military occupational specialty. 
 
5.  By letter, dated 19 September 2007, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), Chapter 6, due to Hardship. She stated, in pertinent part, that her three children were left in her husband’s custody when she entered Basic Combat Training on 5 September 2007. Her husband decided that he would no longer care for her children and left them with her mother. Her mother is unable to provide the 
required care for her children due to polio. Her first sergeant confirmed the hardship situation. 
 
6.  A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 24 September 2007, reiterated the applicant’s request for discharge as soon as administratively possible, to care for her children. 
 
7.  The applicant’s commander recommended approval of the applicant’s separation on 26 September 2007, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 6, by reason of hardship, with the issuance of an uncharacterized discharge.  
 
8.  The separation authority approved the recommended action on 1 October 2007, with uncharacterized service. 
 
9.  The applicant was discharged on 1 October 2007. Her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged in the rank of specialist/E-4, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 6-3a, for hardship. Her service was uncharacterized, with reentry code 3. She completed 1 month and 5 days of net active service this period. 
 
10.  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. An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier’s military service. It simply means the Soldier was not in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. 
 
11.  On 9 December 2011, the Army Discharge Review Board determined she was properly and equitably discharged and denied her request for a change in the character and/or reason of her discharge. 
 
12.  The applicant provides two VA letters that show she has a service-connected disability rating of 100 percent for PTSD with Bipolar Disorder. 
 
13.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition, arguments and assertions, and service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency guidance. 
 
14.  MEDICAL REVIEW: 
 
    a.  Background: The applicant is requesting an upgrade of her characterization of service from uncharacterized to honorable. She contends that PTSD and sexual assault/harassment mitigate her separation.   
    b.  The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP). Below is a summary of information pertinent to this advisory:  
• The applicant enlisted in the RA on 27 August 2007. However, she did not complete military training.  

• The applicant requested discharge under AR 635-200, Chapter 6, due to hardship. See ROP for details. Her command approved the request.  

• The applicant was discharged on 1 October 2007. She was discharged under AR  635-200, paragraph 6-3a, for hardship. Her service was uncharacterized, with reentry code 3. She completed 1 month and 5 days of net active service this period. 

• On 9 December 2011, the Army Discharge Review Board determined she was properly and equitably discharged and denied her request for a change in the character and/or reason of her discharge. 


 
c.  Review of Available Records Including Medical: 
The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor reviewed this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s completed DD Form 293, her ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), two Department of Veterans Affairs Letters, DD 214 and documents from her service record and separation process. The VA electronic medical record and DoD health record were reviewed through Joint Longitudinal View (JLV) and AHLTA. Lack of citation or discussion in this section should not be interpreted as lack of consideration. 
  
    d.  This applicant’s records indicate that she requested to be released from the Army due to hardship (needed to take care of her children when her husband refused, and her mother was unable, due to polio). Due to her brief length of service (less than 180 days), she received an uncharacterized characterization of service. However, she is requesting an honorable discharge, stating she intended to do four years or longer, and now has a medical condition. She contends MST and PTSD are mitigating factors.  
    e.  The applicant entered the service without any known mental health concerns, as her DD Form 2807 and 2808 shows she was qualified for service with a 1 on her physical profile for psychiatric conditions. There are no other mental health records, no civilian records provided, nor any other corroborating evidence to suggest that she sought treatment or was diagnosed with a mental health disorder while in the service. Per the records available she was not experiencing any mental health condition when she opted to request a discharge for hardship. However, her application does suggest she experienced an MST during her brief military experience, though it is unclear when, and per the accounts from her time in service, the MST was not the reason for the request for discharge 
    f.  Applicant’s electronic health record (EHR) reflects that she began engaging in mental health care through the VA in 2021, with her initial assessment noting she’d been receiving psychiatric care and medications for the last 7 years. She holds several diagnoses to include PTSD, as well as Bipolar 1 Disorder, most recent episode mixed with psychotic features, and alcohol use disorder, in full remission. She has engaged in group and individual therapy, to include addressing her trauma. The applicant did not have any compensation and pension (C&P) evaluations in her EHR for review, however she provided VA documents supporting her service connection. The applicant provided a VA benefits letter which indicates she is 100% service connected for “PTSD with Bipolar Disorder (also claimed as severe anxiety,” with an effective date of 5 November 2021. A letter also specified that her PTSD is due to military sexual trauma (MST) and has been established as directly related to military service.  
    g.  Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral Health Advisor there is evidence she had a mitigating experience occur during her time in service and now is service connected for a mitigating condition. However, the applicant did not have any misconduct that would need to be mitigated. Her separation process was previously found to be proper, equitable and free of error.   
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 asserts a mitigating condition and experience.  
 
    (2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes, the experience occurred during her time in service. The condition was not diagnosed, per records available, for many years after her discharge.  
 
    (3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The applicant has had a mitigating experience and has been diagnosed with a service connected mitigating condition. However, per available records, the applicant received an uncharacterized discharge given her length of service prior to her requesting to discharge due to family hardship. Her MST and asserted mental health do not appear to be the reason for her requested and voluntary discharge, though in her application she alluded to no longer serving due to what happened. She reported she now has a medical condition he has to live with and did not ask for. If there were misconduct to mitigate, this advisor would recommend an upgrade to her discharge given that she has experienced an MST and has been service connected for PTSD. If under this rare circumstance, an upgrade to honorable is possible, this advisor would support.  
 
    h.  Of note, there is no indication that a disability discharge would have been more appropriate. Though she has a disability rating for PTSD secondary to an MST, VA examinations are based on different standards and parameters; they do not address whether a medical condition met or failed Army retention criteria or if it was a ratable condition during the period of service. Therefore, a VA disability rating does not imply failure to meet Army retention standards at the time of service. A subsequent diagnosis of PTSD through the VA is not indicative of an injustice at the time of service. Furthermore, even an in-service diagnosis of PTSD is not automatically unfitting per AR 40-501 and would not automatically result in medical separation processing. Lastly, an MST does not automatically warrant a medical discharge, nor does it automatically make someone unfit for duty.  
 
 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
 
The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical review, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, her record of service, and the reason for her separation. The Board considered the applicant's PTSD/MST claim and the note by the ARBA BH Advisor that her separation process was previously found to be proper, equitable and free of error. The evidence confirms the applicant was in an entry-level status when her request to be discharge for hardship was approved, and her service was uncharacterized in accordance with the governing regulation.  Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined the applicant’s uncharacterized service is not in error or unjust.   
 
 
BOARD VOTE: 
 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
 
: : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
 
:xx :xx :xx 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. 
  7/17/2023

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, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the 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.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1556, provides the Secretary of the Army shall ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by ARBA is provided a copy of all correspondence and communications, including summaries of verbal communications, with any agencies or persons external to agency or board, or a member of the staff of the agency or Board, that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute. 
 
3.  Army Regulation 635-200, provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  
 
     a.  Paragraph 6-3a provides for the separation of Soldiers because of genuine hardship/dependency. Genuine hardship/dependency, for the purpose of separation under this paragraph, is defined as when death or disability of a member of a Soldier’s (or spouse’s) immediate family causes that member to rely upon the Soldier for principal care or support.  
 
     b.  The regulation requires an uncharacterized separation of service when the separation is initiated while the Soldier is in entry level status. 
 
4.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Service Discharge Review Boards and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR) 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//