IN THE CASE OF:  
 
  BOARD DATE: 15 August 2023 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230002558 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Her uncharacterized service be upgraded to honorable, based on medical reasons. 
 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
 
• DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) 

• License and Certificate of Marriage, State of South Carolina, 27 January 2007 

• Marriage Register, Commonwealth of Virginia, dated 1 April 2021 

• Driver’s License, Virginia, date illegible 

• Social Security card, 7 September 2021 

• Health Insurance Claim Form, 11 August 2022 

• letter, Insight Psychological Services, 3 October 2022 


 
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, in effect: 
 
 a.  She was recognized for having outstanding personal conduct and performance until she was injured. The injury led to anxiety and depression. Her mental health began to deteriorate. Immediately following her injury in basic training, she was threatened with being “recycled.” She was pressured to continue training while suffering. She was also told if she wanted a medical discharge, she would have to remain in the service for at least another 6 months. 
 
 b.  She was pressured to seek a Chapter 11 discharge. At only 21 years of age, she did not fully understand the paperwork. She had to make difficult decisions that she would not fully comprehend. Nevertheless, she was injured, which resulted in anxiety and depression that was finally diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 
3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 February 2001, for a 4-year period. 
 
4.  The applicant was formally counseled by her first sergeant (1SG) on 23 April 2001, regarding her request to be separated from the Army. She was advised of her responsibilities as a Soldier and the course of action she must take to find a solution. The commander would meet with her to discuss the matter, and she was told she could go to Community Mental Health Services (CMHS) on a walk-in basis. 
 
5.  The applicant’s service record contains a self-authored statement, dated 23 April 2001, wherein she states, in effect: 
 
 a.  She was lied to by her recruiter. She was told she did not have to worry about deploying because she is a female, married, and has children. That was the condition upon which she agreed to enlist. She learned there is a strong possibility she will deploy. She was also lied to by the MEPS [Military Entrance Processing Station] counselor who told her she would be sitting in an office at a switchboard. 
 
 b.  She has come to the conclusion that she cannot adjust or adapt to the Army. She is stressed out, depressed, and frustrated with the Army which is taking an emotional toll on her. She was deceived and thinks about spending the next four years of her life being miserable. The people who play key roles in the Army do not adhere to the Army Values. 
 
 c.  She injured herself during a diagnostic physical fitness test in basic training. She continues to give every day to achieve the requirements, but she is not willing to injure herself further. 
 
6.  The applicant underwent a mental health evaluation on 10 May 2001. The clinical psychologist noted, the applicant had increasing difficulties coping with being on active duty and showed signs of psychological and emotional deterioration since reporting to Fort Gordon, GA. She presented with worsening symptoms of anxiety, depression, and somatic symptoms which would likely be exacerbated by continued service, despite remediate efforts. As such, it was recommended she be administratively separated from the Army on the basis of unsuitability due to failure to adapt to military life. 
 
7.  The applicant was formally counseled by her 1SG on 10 May 2001, based upon her appointment at the CMHS. The 1SG supported the recommendation of the clinical psychologist. The applicant missed several blocks of instruction and was phased back, pending restart into another class. 
 
8.  The applicant's immediate commander notified her on 1 June 2001 that he was initiating actions to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 11, paragraph 3a, for inability to 
adapt to military life. As the specific reason, the commander cited the applicant’s continued symptoms of anxiety, depression, and somatic symptoms. He further recommended an entry level separation with uncharacterized service. 
 
9.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation notification on the same date. She was advised of the reasons for separation and of the rights available to her. She consulted with counsel and elected to submit a statement in her own behalf which is not available for review. 
 
10.  The applicant's immediate commander formally recommended her separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11. The separation authority approved the recommendation on 5 June 2001 and directed the issuance of an entry level separation (uncharacterized). 
 
11.  The applicant was discharged on 12 June 2001, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, by reason of entry level performance and conduct. Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows she was credited with 4 months and 12 days of net active service and her service was uncharacterized. The applicant was not awarded a military occupational specialty (MOS). 
 
12.  The Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge from uncharacterized to honorable on 29 January 2014. After careful review, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge was both proper and equitable. The Board denied relief. 
 
13.  The applicant provides the following: 
 
 a.  A License and Certificate for Marriage from the State of South Carolina, which shows the applicant was married on 27 January 2007, warranting a change in her last name to K-------. 
 
 b.  A Marriage Register from the Commonwealth of Virginia, which shows the applicant was married on 1 April 2021, warranting a change in her last name to S------. She also includes her Virginia State driver’s license and Social Security card showing the last name S------. 
 
 c.  A health insurance claim form, dated 11 August 2022, which indicates the applicant has been diagnosed with panic disorder (episodic) and PTSD (chronic). 
 
 d.  A letter from a licensed clinical social worker at Insight Psychological Services, PLLC, dated 3 October 2022, that shows the applicant engaged in individual counseling from 13 November 2018 to 14 November 2019 to treat PTSD. 
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. 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. 
 
15.  MEDICAL REVIEW: 
 
    a.  Background: The applicant is requesting her uncharacterized service be upgraded to honorable, based on medical reasons. The applicant contends other mental health and PTSD mitigate her discharge.  
    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:  
• Applicant enlisted in the Regular Army 1 February 2001. 

• The applicant was formally counseled by her first sergeant (1SG) on 23 April 2001, regarding her request to be separated from the Army.  

• The applicant's immediate commander notified her on 1 June 2001 that he was initiating actions to separate her under AR  635-200, Chapter 11, paragraph 3a, for inability to adapt to military life. As the specific reason, the commander cited the applicant’s continued symptoms of anxiety, depression, and somatic symptoms. He further recommended an entry level separation with uncharacterized service. 

• The applicant was discharged on 12 June 2001 with uncharacterized service.  

• The ADRB considered the applicant’s request for an upgrade on 29 January 2014. The Board denied relief. 


 
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), health insurance claim form, letter from a provider, DD Form 214, as well as documents from her service record and separation.  The VA electronic medical record and DoD health record were reviewed through Joint Longitudinal View (JLV). Lack of citation or discussion in this section should not be interpreted as lack of consideration.  
 
    d.  The applicant asserts that she had outstanding personal conduct and performance prior to an injury, with the injury leading to depression and anxiety. She noted that she was told she’d be recycled if she did not continue on with training, even while injured, which she asserts led to continued deterioration of her mental health. She was later 
diagnosed with PTSD. The applicant believes she should have been discharged with an honorable or medical discharge. As part of her service record, the applicant provided a self-authored statement requesting separation. At that time, she noted that she could not adjust or adapt, cited the injury, as well as the mental health deterioration (“stressed out” and “depressed”), and noted not being willing to injure herself further. She also cited being lied to by her recruiter and MEPS about what her service would look like (told she would not deploy and would sit at a desk…she learned this was not likely to be true).   
 
    e.  The applicant underwent two mental health sessions on 8 and 10 May 2001. The clinical psychologist noted, the applicant had increasing difficulties coping with being on active duty and showed signs of psychological and emotional deterioration since reporting to Fort Gordon. She presented with worsening symptoms of anxiety, depression, and somatic symptoms which would likely be exacerbated by continued service, despite remediate efforts. It was recommended she be administratively separated from the Army on the basis of unsuitability due to failure to adapt to military life. No formal diagnosis was reported, and no profile was given. The applicant’s electronic health record (EHR) is void of any mental health encounters from her time in service (which is not uncommon given the year she served). 
    f.  Per the applicant’s EHR, since her discharge she was a family member of a service member and continued to get DOD healthcare with medical encounters from 2007 to 2009. During this time, no mental health encounters were present though she did mention difficulty with sleep/insomnia during a few medical appointments. The applicant has not engaged in care through the VA outside of two compensation and pension evaluations (C&P), one for medical and one for mental health. The mental health C&P occurred on 8 September 2014. The results indicated she had been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder and alcohol use disorder. She noted engaging in therapy in 2010. The evaluator stated, “Veteran's Generalized Anxiety Disorder is less likely as not (less than 50/50 probability) caused by or a result of her four month military service.” The evaluation went on to state that her anxiety likely predated her service and was related to childhood experiences and while it has continued, a list of other current stressors were related to her presentation (school stress, failed marriages, family deaths, etc.). The applicant is not service connected. The applicant did submit medical records to show her current diagnoses and treatment. Per an insurance record, she has been diagnosed with panic disorder (episodic) and PTSD (chronic) as of 2022. She was also engaged in individual therapy from 13 November 2018 to 14 November 2019 for PTSD. 
    g.  Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral Health Advisor that there is evidence the applicant experienced stress, and symptoms of anxiety and depression though never received a formal diagnosis while in the service.  Also, there is no evidence of a mitigating condition being present during her time in 
service. However, per Liberal Consideration guidance, her contention is sufficient to warrant the boards consideration.  
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 depression, anxiety and PTSD.  
 
    (2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant asserts anxiety and depression while in the service and developing PTSD later.  
 
    (3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. It appears that her physical injury was likely mild (per medical C&P, there’s no record of treatment while in the service), and that while it may have played a role in her mental health concerns, she consistently pointed to being lied to and misled about what her service would look like as a major contributing factor to her displeasure with the Army and desire to get out. Though no diagnosis was available in the documentation from her time in service, it would likely best be described as an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. Adjustment disorders are not typically considered for mitigation in less it is/was a place holder for a more severe and mitigatable diagnosis. The applicant was eventually diagnosed with panic disorder and PTSD, though this is not evidenced in her medical file until 2019 (18 years after discharge). In addition, no treatment notes or encounters were provided for review, so there’s no way of knowing what event or events led to her PTSD diagnosis. Additionally, the applicant was seen for a C&P evaluation, and it was found that her mental health condition(s) are not service connected. Lastly, the applicant does not have any misconduct to mitigate. She received an uncharacterized discharge given her length of service (less than 180 days), which is not meant to be punitive and accurately reflects both her time in service and her desire to get out. There is insufficient evidence to support a referral to IDES process at this time, as there is no evidence from her time in service to support any diagnoses that may or may not have rendered her unfit for duty, not meeting medical retention standards, or had her on a profile. It was suspected that if she stayed in, her mental health may deteriorate but this would not justify a medical discharge.  
 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
 
After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. The 
applicant was discharged due to entry level performance and conduct. She completed 4 months and 12 days of net active service, and her service was uncharacterized. The applicant was not awarded a military occupational specialty. The Board considered the medical records, any VA documents provided by the applicant and the review and conclusions of the advising official. The Board concurred with the medical advisory opinion finding insufficient evidence to support a referral to disability evaluation system at this time, as there is no evidence from her time in service to support any diagnoses that may or may not have rendered her unfit for duty, not meeting medical retention standards, or had her on a profile. Additionally, 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.  As such, her DD Form 214 properly shows his service as uncharacterized. 
 
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. 
 
  8/15/2023

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.  Section 1556 of Title 10, U.S. Code, requires the Secretary of the Army to ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) be provided with a copy of any correspondence and communications (including summaries of verbal communications) to or from the Agency with anyone outside the Agency that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute. ARBA medical advisory opinions and reviews are authored by ARBA civilian and military medical and behavioral health professionals and are therefore internal agency work product. Accordingly, ARBA does not routinely provide copies of ARBA Medical Office recommendations, opinions (including advisory opinions), and reviews to Army Board for Correction of Military Records applicants (and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication. 
 
3.  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. 
 
4.  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 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. 
 
5.  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, 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. 
 
 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//