IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 January 2024 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230006561 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, correction of his DD form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 8 May 1987, to show an upgrade of his “entry level status” characterization of service to honorable, and his narrative reason for separation changed from to “medical discharge.” 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) * DD Form 214, for the period ending 8 May 1987 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-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, he is requesting to have his separation upgraded to honorable due to being medically discharged. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 April 1987 for a 3-year period. 4. A memorandum for record, dated 27 April 1987, shows the Battalion Chaplain counseled the applicant on 26 April 1987. According to the commander, [the applicant] attempted suicide the night before. He was unresponsive to the chaplain’s questions. He acknowledged he tried to kill himself, but his problems would go away if he could get out of the Army. He claimed he was a Jehovah’s Witness and could not remain in the Army due to his religious beliefs. Upon questioning, he appeared to know very little about the theology of the group. The chaplain opined [the applicant] was too emotionally unstable to complete military training. 5. The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 27 April 1987. The examining provider determined the applicant was experiencing adjustment difficulties. He stated that his desire to hurt himself could be alleviated if he were discharged from the service. He had no desire to concentrate on training or become a productive Soldier. The provider determined the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. 6. The applicant's immediate commander notified him on 29 April 1987 that he was initiating actions to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 11, by reason of entry level status performance and conduct. As the specific reason, the commander stated the applicant was hospitalized the day after arriving at the battery. While in the hospital, he claimed to be a Seventh Day Adventist and thus could not serve. Upon discharge from the hospital and notification he was being transferred to a different battery, he claimed to be a Jehovah’s Witness and thus could not serve. The day after arriving at the new battery, he slashed his arm with a razor in a suicidal gesture. The commander determined he was a disruptive influence on the unit. 7. On that same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation notification, and acknowledged understanding, if approved, he would be receiving an entry level separation with uncharacterized service. He was advised of the reasons for separation and of the rights available to him. He consulted with counsel, elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf, and did not request a separation physical. 8. The applicant's immediate commander formally recommended his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, on 30 April 1987. 9. The separation authority approved the recommendation on 5 May 1987 and directed the issuance of an entry level separation (uncharacterized). 10. The applicant was discharged on 8 May 1987, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11-3a, by reason of entry level status performance and conduct. His DD Form 214 confirms his character of service was entry level status (uncharacterized), with separation code JGA and reenlistment code RE-3. He was credited with 1 month and 8 days of net active service. He was not awarded a military occupational specialty (MOS). 11. 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 his separation. 12. The Board should consider the applicant's argument and/or evidence in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 13. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting in effect to correct his DD form 214 to show an upgrade of his “entry level status” characterization of service to honorable, and his narrative reason for separation to be changed to “medical 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 1 April 1987; 2) The applicant's immediate commander notified him on 29 April 1987 that he was initiating actions to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 11, by reason of entry level status performance and conduct; 3) The applicant was discharged on 8 May 1987, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11-3a, by reason of entry level status performance and conduct. His DD Form 214 confirms his character of service was entry level status (uncharacterized), with separation code JGA and reenlistment code RE-3. He was credited with 1 month and 8 days of net active service. He was not awarded a military occupational specialty (MOS). 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 examined. No additional civilian medical documentation was provided for review d. The applicant requests to have his separation changed to honorable due his belief that he was medically discharged. The applicant clearly was demonstrated difficulty adjusting to military training. Shortly after arriving, he was demonstrating difficulty adapting. He requested to be discharged due to his membership as a Seventh Day Adventists or Jehovah Witness. However, the applicant appeared to lack fundamental understanding of either religious group. He was also demonstrating suicidal ideation and was reported to have engaged in suicidal behavior. The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation conducted by a military behavioral health officer on 27 April 1987. He was found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings, mentally responsible, and met the retention requirements of Chapter 3, AR 40-501. The applicant was recommended for administrative discharge due to his adjustment difficulties. This recommendation was also made by the Battalion Chaplain, who spoke to the applicant on 26 April 198, about his difficulties and his religious beliefs. A review of JLV was void of medical documentation, and the applicant does not receive any service-connected disability. e. Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that the applicant experienced significant difficulty adjusting to military life. The applicant was properly assessed by an appropriate licensed military behavioral health provider, while on active service. He was found to meet retention standards, but due to his inability to adapt efficiently, he was found unfit for continued military service. Kurta Questions: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? No, there is insufficient evidence the applicant has ever been diagnosed with any mental health condition to include a service-connected mental health condition. The applicant experienced significant difficulty adjusting to military life. The applicant was properly assessed by an appropriate licensed military behavioral health provider, while on active service. He was found to meet retention standards, but due to his inability to adapt efficiently, he was found unfit for continued military service. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence at this time to support a referral to IDES. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? N/A. (3) Does the condition experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A. 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 his characterization of service. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records and medical review, the Board concurred with the advising official finding insufficient evidence the applicant has ever been diagnosed with any mental health condition to include a service-connected mental health condition. The Board determined based on the opine the applicant was found to meet retention standards, but due to his inability to adapt efficiently, he was found unfit for continued military service. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence at this time to support a referral to IDES. 2. The Board noted the applicant completed 1 months and 8 days of his service obligation and did not complete training and was released by reason of entry level status performance and conduct. An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier’s military service. It merely means the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for upgrade of his uncharacterized character of service or referral of his case to the DES. Therefore, the Board denied relief. 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. 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. Section 1556 of Title 10, USC, requires the Secretary of the Army to ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by 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 635-40 (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. 4. Army Regulation 635-200 sets policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. 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 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. d. Paragraph 3-9 provides 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. e. 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. 5. 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; 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 sexual assault or sexual harassment was unreported, or 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. 6. On 25?July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military DRBs and Service 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// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20230006561 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1