IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 August 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230002082 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show her characterization of service 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 * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), 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 her DD Form 214 should be corrected due to circumstances that occurred during her enlistment that and made her unable to fulfill her contract. On her DD Form 149, the applicant notes post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), other mental health conditions, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell are related to her request. 3. On 15 September 2000, the applicant underwent a pre-enlistment medical examination. Her medical examination did not reveal any defects or diagnoses and she was deemed qualified for service. 4. On 15 September 2000, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) for a period of 8 years. 5. The available record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant s discharge processing. Additionally, a mental status evaluation is not available for review. 6. The applicant was released from active duty on 6 December 2000. Her DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 11, by reason of Entry Level Performance and Conduct. Her service was uncharacterized. She was credited with completing 2 months and 17 days of net active service this period. She was not awarded a military occupational specialty. 7. Orders 340-1309, issued by Headquarters, United States Army Training Center and Fort Jackson, Fort Jackson, SC on 5 December 2000, show she was discharged from the USAR, effective 6 December 2000. 8. 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 merely means the Soldier did not serve on active duty long enough for his or her character of service to be rated. 9. In addition to the previously discussed evidence, the applicant provides a VA Rating decision, dated 8 September 2022, which shows she was granted a disability rating of 70 percent based on service-connected PTSD with major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate, generalized anxiety and obsessive compulsive disorder with fair insight. 10. 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. 11. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The applicant is requesting correction of her DD Form 214 to show her characterization of service as "Honorable" rather than "Uncharacterized". She contends her misconduct was related to PTSD, Other Mental Health Issues, and Don t Ask Don t Tell. 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 into the U.S Army Reserves on 15 September 2000; 2) The available record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant s discharge processing; 3) The applicant was released from active duty on 6 December 2000. Her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 11, by reason of Entry Level Performance and Conduct. c. The VA electronic medical record (JLV), ROP, and casefiles were reviewed. The military electronic medical record (AHLTA) was not reviewed as it was not in use during the applicant s time in service. Although no military BH records were provided for review, VA C&P dated 3 June 2022, showed the examiner listed as evidence comments , a Reported of Mental Status Examination, dated 13 November 2000, that showed, that while on active-duty, the applicant was psychiatrically hospitalized for attempted suicide by overdose, diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder, and recommended for Chapter 11 because she posed a risk to self and cadre and preferred the company of non-ph females . d. A review of JLV showed the applicant 70 percent SC for PTSD. VA C&P Examination, dated 3 June 2022, showed the examiner diagnosed the applicant with PTSD, Depression, and GAD, with onset during initial entry training (IET). PTSD was reportedly secondary to an incident whereby the applicant s DI reportedly pulled a gun on her an ordered her to her knees, after the DI caught her without a battle-buddy. The applicant was then reportedly ordered to yell out that she was a prisoner of war and needed a buddy. Six other women reportedly came down without battle buddies, and the DI held the gun on them all until someone finally came down with a battle-buddy. The applicant reportedly feared for her life as she was unsure if the DI would shoot her given prior conflicts she had with the DI after she asked the applicant if she was gay, in the presence of other Soldiers. The applicant reported that following the incidents she began experiencing depression, anxiety, nightmares, and paranoia, that eventually led to a suicide attempt and subsequent psychiatric hospitalization. Included in Evidence Comments was information from a Report of Mental Status Examination, dated 13 November 2000, that showed the applicant was psychiatrically admitted for attempted overdose, diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder, and recommended for Chapter 11 because the applicant posed a risk to self and cadre and preferred the company of non-ph females . e. The applicant first BH treatment engagement with the VA appears to have occurred at the Las Vegas, NV, VA on 13 April 2023 whereby she presented to the BH triage clinic with complaints of SI without intent, due to multiple stressors but was noted as not willing to provided specifics. She was scheduled for an intake and seen the following day (14 April 2023) and reported symptoms of increased anxiety, depressed mood, decreased energy and motivation, helplessness and hopelessness, and panic attack. She was noted to have history of PTSD, and a reported history of chronic suicidal ideation, but she denied suicidal ideation or intent at the time of the treatment encounter. She was diagnosed with PTSD, Anxiety, and Insomnia, prescribed psychotropic medication, and referred for outpatient care. Encounter noted dated 23 May 2023 showed the applicant reported improved symptoms overall, but that depressive symptoms continued to come and go. She reported taking excessive pills on 4 May 2023 but did not go into the hospital because she did not want to be psychiatrically hospitalized. She reported that instead, she went to work and then return home where her wife watched her. She denied any suicidal ideation within the past week. Encounter note date 20 June 2023 showed the applicant reported feeling significant better since last encounter, she denied any suicide attempts or gestures, but acknowledged work-related anxiety. Records show the applicant has remained in outpatient BH treatment for through July 2023. f. The applicant is requesting her DD Form 214 be changed to reflect an honorable discharge instead of an uncharacterized discharge. She contends her separation was related to PTSD, Other Mental Health Issues, and Don t Ask Don t Tell. A review of the records showed the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder during service. Post-service records showed the applicant 70 percent SC for PTSD and she met diagnostic criteria for MDD and GAD related to experiences endured during IET that eventually led to her administrative separation. Given the available information, it is not unreasonable to conclude the applicant s separation was the result her behavior secondary to her perceived traumatic experiences and threat experienced during IET. It is also not unreasonable to conclude that in absence her experiences, the applicant would have completed training and potentially her term of enlistment. Given the above, it is the opinion of this advisor that the applicant s behavior that led to administrative separation was mitigated by her conditions of PTSD, MDD, and GAD. The applicant s experience associated with Don t Ask, Don t Tell, resulted in increased anxiety and isolation which are subsumed under the diagnoses of MDD and GAD. It is the opinion of this advisor that there is sufficient evidence to support an upgrade to HD/SA. g. Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that there is sufficient evidence that the applicant had an experience or condition during her time in service that mitigated her misconduct. 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 and also diagnosed by the VA with MDD and GAD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The conditions were reportedly secondary to experiences endured during IET. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. Although the available record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant s discharge processing, evidence outlined in C&P Examination dated 3 June 2022, suggest it was likely related to the applicant s behavior that resulted in her being psychiatrically hospitalized and subsequently recommended for administrative separation by the provider. This opine is based on that likelihood. A review of the records showed the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder during service. Post-service records showed the applicant 70 percent SC for PTSD and she met diagnostic criteria for MDD and GAD related to experiences endured during IET that eventually led to her administrative separation. Given the available information, it is not unreasonable to conclude the applicant s separation was the result her behavior secondary to her perceived traumatic experiences and threat experienced during IET. It is also not unreasonable to conclude that in absence her experiences, the applicant would have completed IET training and potentially her term of enlistment. Given the above, it is the opinion of this advisor that the applicant s behavior that led to administrative separation was mitigated by her conditions of PTSD, MDD, and GAD. The applicant s experience associated with Don t Ask, Don t Tell, resulted in increased anxiety and isolation which are subsumed under the diagnoses of MDD and GAD. It is the opinion of this advisor that there is sufficient evidence to support an upgrade to HD/SA. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board determined that relief was warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's statement, record of service, the frequency and nature of the misconduct, and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. One outcome was to deny relief. However, two Board members agreed that had it not been for her behavior secondary to her perceived traumatic experiences and threats during IET, she would have otherwise completed IET. Based on the preponderance of the documentation available for review, the Board determined the evidence presented sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 :xx : :xx GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : :xx : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 for the period ending 6 December 2000 showing in: item 24 (Characterization of Service): Honorable item 25 (Separation Authority): AR 635-200 item 26 (Separation Code): JFF in item 27 (Reenlistment (Re) Code) RE-1 item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) Miscellaneous/General Reasons 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. Title 10, USC, Section 1556, provides the Secretary of the Army shall ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency (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 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice has occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. It is not an investigative body. 4. 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 provided policy and guidance for the separation of personnel in an entry level status for unsatisfactory performance or conduct as evidenced by inability, lack of reasonable effort or a failure to adapt to the military environment. These provisions applied only to individuals that were in an entry-level status, undergoing Initial Entrance Training, and, before the date of the initiation of separation action, had completed no more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty. Before initiating separation action, commanders would ensure that the Soldier received adequate counseling and rehabilitation. An uncharacterized separation was mandatory under 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. 5. The Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRB) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR), on 3 September 2014 [Hagel Memorandum], to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 6. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided clarifying guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 August 2017 [Kurta Memorandum]. The memorandum directed them to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD, traumatic brain injury, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Standards for review should rightly consider the unique nature of these cases and afford each veteran a reasonable opportunity for relief even if the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years later. Boards are to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on those conditions or experiences. 7. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 July 2018 [Wilkie Memorandum], 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) AR20230002082 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1