IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 August 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230000727 APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 18 December 1987 to show: * her characterization of service as "Honorable" rather than "Uncharacterized" * a different Separation Program Designator (SPD) code and narrative reason for separation rather than SPD code "JFT" and "Did Not Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards-No Disability" APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the U.S.) * Self-authored statement 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 AR20160005313 on 14 November 2017. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she desires to have her service accurately reflect the fact that she attempted to serve her country in an honorable manner. She believes she should hold status as a Veteran who met all the enlistment criteria and protocols and was cleared to serve within the U.S. Army. She states she was subjected to various forms of harassment from the time she arrived for Basic Combat Training (BCT) until she was ultimately separated after spending three weeks in Walson Army Community Hospital at Fort Dix, NJ. a. She was harassed for the length of her hair, so she had it cut to comply with uniform requirements. Two weeks later her hair had grown, and she was verbally reprimanded due to the length of her hair. b. She rarely had an opportunity to train with her unit because she was detailed to the mess hall to perform KP [kitchen police] duties every day. c. During weapons training, the Drill Sergeant instructed the class to wait for instructions prior to firing the simulated weapon. A different drill sergeant whispered in her ear to fire the weapon and she refused. Then he ordered her to fire the weapon so, she did and got in trouble for disobeying Drill Sergeant . d. She was sleep deprived to the point of passing out during late night classes because she had to work KP all day and then perform fire watch duties at night. e. One night another Soldier warned her that the ladies in her dorm were going to throw a blanket over her head and fight her, so she requested to go to the sick bay to avoid danger. f. She was never properly prepared to perform the duties of a Soldier. She never knew the rules or what was expected of her as a trainee. She remembers being ordered to take off her gas mask in the gas chamber. That was the point that her life in the military changed because the chemicals to which she was exposed caused her to collapse. g. Being given conflicting commands confused her, induced a psychotic breakdown, and caused traumatic events for her. She was sent to the hospital to determine her level of stability. A female drill sergeant assisted her with making it to her scheduled appointments for psychiatric evaluation. h. After spending three weeks in the hospital, Drill Sergeant came to retrieve her military gear and make sure she would not be able to reenlist after being discharged. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 5 November 1987. 4. An Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) was conducted to evaluate the applicant's condition on 8 December 1987. Her DA Form 4707 (EPSBD Proceedings) show that after careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examinations, the board found the applicant was unfit for appointment or enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians, and by her own admission, the condition existed prior to service (EPTS). a. She had a previous psychiatric history approximately 10 years earlier. She was uncertain of the diagnosis, but she was treated for approximately 8 years with Navane [antipsychotic drug], making the diagnostic probability of schizophrenia obvious. b. She was referred from Community Mental Health Activity for admission on 1 December 1987 following reports by her unit of numerous acts of inappropriate behavior during her initial 5 weeks of BCT and delusions of a conspiracy to persecute her or have her declared crazy. According to unit reports, she had several counseling sessions for disrespect, insubordination, and disobedience. She claimed both her peers and instructors were out to get her and gave several examples of a conspiracy to make her appear crazy. She felt the reason for this conspiracy was her high intelligence and advanced age. She claimed to have overheard a drill instructor telling her peers to shoot her during weapons training. c. The applicant was diagnosed with schizophrenia, paranoic type, chronic, with acute exacerbation, severe. This condition was manifested by negativistic behavior, confusion and perplexity, delusions of persecution, inappropriate behavior in the unit and grandiose delusions and depressed mood. d. It was recommended the applicant be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-11, for failure to meet medical procurement standards due to her EPTS condition. e. On 12 December 1987, the applicant acknowledged the EPSBD findings and further acknowledged that she had been advised legal counsel from an Army attorney was available to her or she could consult civilian counsel at her own expense. She could request discharge from the Army without delay or request retention on active duty. She concurred with the proceedings and requested discharge from the Army without delay. f. On the same date, the applicant's commander recommended she be discharged. g. The separation authority approved the Board’s recommendation on 15 December 1987 and directed the applicant's separation from service. 5. The applicant was discharged on 18 December 1987, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards - no disability, with SPD code "JFT." She did not complete initial entry training and was not awarded a military occupational specialty. Her Reentry Eligibility (RE) code was "RE 3." She was credited with completion of 1 month and 14 days of net active service. Her service was uncharacterized. 6. The applicant's record is void of and she has not provided any evidence showing she was subjected to sexual assault/harassment or that she was diagnosed with any medical or behavioral health condition that warranted referral to the Physical Disability Evaluation System. 7. The evidence of record shows the applicant was in an entry-level status at the time of her separation processing. An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service. It merely means the Soldier did not serve on active duty long enough for his or her character of service to be rated. 8. The applicant petitioned the ABCMR for relief. On 16 November 2017, she was informed the Board considered her application under procedures established by the Secretary of the Army and denied her request. 9. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting in effect to correct her DD Form 214 to show her characterization of service as "Honorable" rather than "Uncharacterized" and a different Separation Program Designator (SPD) code and narrative reason for separation. She contends she had a mental health condition and experienced harassment that mitigated her discharge. 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) The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 November 1987; 2) An Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) was conducted for the applicant on 8 December 1987. The board found the applicant was unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians, and by her own admission, the condition existed prior to service; 3) The applicant was discharged on 18 December 1987, paragraph 5-11, by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards - no disability, with SPD code "JFT”. Her service was uncharacterized; 4) The applicant petitioned the ABCMR, and on 16 November 2017, she was informed the Board denied her request. c. The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s military service and medical records. The VA’s Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) was also reviewed. No additional hardcopy civilian treatment records were provided for review. d. The applicant asserts she was experiencing harassment and other mental health conditions while on active service which mitigates her discharge. She marked sexual assault/harassment on her application, but she did not describe being exposed to sexual assault/harassment. Also, there was insufficient evidence the applicant reported or experienced sexual assault/harassment while on active service. She did report experiencing nonsexual harassment, but the majority of the situations described appeared consistent with typical events during basic training. The applicant was referred to mental health services on 01 December 1987 following reports by her unit of numerous acts of inappropriate behavior during her initial training along with delusions of conspiracy to persecute her or have her declared crazy. She reported a history of psychiatric treatment to include taking an antipsychotic drug for approximately eight years. She was diagnosed with schizophrenia, paranoic type, chronic, with acute exacerbation, severe, and she was recommended for administrative separation due to failure to meet medical procurement standards. The applicant acknowledged these findings on 12 December 1987, and she was separated accordingly. e. A review of JLV provided evidence the applicant has been diagnosed with service- connected chronic adjustment disorder for treatment purposes only. She did not provide any additional behavioral health documentation from a civilian provider. f. Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant had condition or experience that mitigates her discharge. Kurta Questions (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes, the applicant contends she experiences harassment while on active service and other mental health conditions. She was diagnosed with schizophrenia while on active service, and she has also been diagnosed with service-connected chronic adjustment disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes, there is evidence the applicant schizophrenia while on active service, and she has also been diagnosed with service-connected chronic adjustment disorder. (3) Does the condition experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No, the applicant contends harassment and mental health conditions should mitigate her discharge, and per the Liberal Consideration Policy, her contention is sufficient for consideration. The applicant was diagnosed with schizophrenia while on active service, and she was appropriately identified and evaluated to not meet procurement medical fitness standards during her initial training. There was insufficient evidence she experienced sexual or other forms of harassment during her initial training, which would warrant possible mitigation to her discharge status. There was evidence the applicant has been diagnosed with service-connected chronic adjustment disorder by the VA for treatment purposes only. However again, this diagnosis does not warrant a change to the nature of her discharge. The applicant received an uncharacterized nature of service, which is an appropriate description of her limited time in service. ? BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal and clemency determinations requests for upgrade of her characterization of service. The governing regulation provides that a separation will be described as an entry-level separation, with service uncharacterized, if the separation action is initiated while a Soldier is in entry- level status. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records and medical review, the Board concurred with the advising official finding insufficient evidence to support the applicant had condition or experience that mitigates her discharge. 2. The Board determined the applicant had pre-existing mental health issues on or about 10 years prior to enlisting into the military. The applicant served 1 month and 14 days of net service, did not complete training and was released from active duty for failure to meet medical procurement standards due to her EPTS condition- no disability. As such, her DD Form 214 properly shows the appropriate characterization of service as uncharacterized, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. Therefore, the Board denied relief. 3. An uncharacterized discharge is not derogatory; it is recorded when a Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to initiation of separation. It merely means the Soldier has not served on active duty long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. 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 Board found 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20160005313 on 14 November 2017. 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 the 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 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The version in effect at the time provided that: a. A separation would be described as entry level with uncharacterized service if the Soldier had less than 180 days of continuous active duty service at the time separation action was initiated. b. 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. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. d. Soldiers separated in an entry-level status receive an uncharacterized character of service. A separation is an entry level status separation if its processing is initiated during the Soldier's first 180 days of continuous active duty. The Secretary of the Army could, on a case-by-case basis, issue an honorable character of service to entry-level Soldiers when clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving personal conduct or duty performance. e. Paragraph 5-11 specifically provided that Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment were to be separated. EPSBD proceedings were required to be convened within the Soldier's first 6 months of active duty service, and had to establish the following: that medical authority identified the disqualifying medical condition(s) within 6 months of the Soldier's initial entrance on active duty; that the condition(s) would have permanently disqualified the Soldier from entry into military service, had it been detected earlier; and that the medical condition did not disqualify him/her for retention in military service. A Soldier disqualified under this provision could request retention on active duty; the separation authority made the final determination. f. 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. 4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (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. This regulation prescribed that the separation code "JFT" was an appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards. Additionally, the SPD/Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code Cross Reference Table established that RE code "3" was the proper reentry code to assign to Soldiers separated under this authority and for this reason. 5. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), in effect at the time, governed the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who might be unfit to perform their military duties due to a disability. It states the mere presence of an impairment did not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness due to physical disability. In each case, it was necessary to compare the nature and degree of the physical disability with the duty requirements of the soldier, based on his or her office, grade, rank, or rating; and a Soldier was presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition upon entering active duty. 6. On 25?August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to Discharge Review Boards (DRB) and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR) when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); traumatic brain injury; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part to those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge. 7. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military DRBs and BCM/NRs regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. a. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, 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) AR20230000727 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1