1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 February 2016 b. Date Received: 13 April 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her uncharacterized discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, Chapter 11, is used to discharge a Soldier when that Soldier shows the inability to adapt to the military environment. The applicant's discharge was based on her inability to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). The paragraph pertaining to physical training (PT) in AR 635-200, Chapter 11, states, "b. Cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training (i.e. PT or Weight standards) because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self- discipline." The applicant states, the problem with the application of Chapter 11, in her case is that both of her legs were injured during the time she took her APFT. These injuries were documented and known by the Drill Instructors. She failed her run due to injury; not lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline. The applicant has documentation of her leg injuries, which date back to her third week of training. At the time of her APFT, she had bilateral shin splints and an injured knee. These Injuries are the factors which prevented her from passing the run. This Soldier passed alt other requirements for Basic Training without any problems. She is eager to heal and return to Advanced Individual Training (AIT) and be a Warrior. The Chapter 11, brings with it an "Uncharacterized Discharge," which is problematic because this type of discharge carries a stigma that prevents enlistment or even benefits, such as medical treatment for the injuries she sustained while training on active duty. Further, it closes doors to pathways that would otherwise be available to her. She states, she cannot get help or medical care from the VA or a military health facility, though she was injured while enduring basic training. The applicant was discharged out of the Army under Chapter 11, because she was hurt during basic training. This is clearly a case in which the system failed the Soldier. It is totally improper to discharge a Soldier in need of medical care when the injury was sustained in the Line of Duty. The applicant's injuries are indisputably injuries, which qualify as Line of Duty injuries, as they occurred during her training under the supervision of her Drill Instructors. The use of Chapter 11, in this case and in any situation such as this, is clearly inappropriate and is a blatant misuse and abuse of authority. She states, the Drill Instructors set an environment of absolute discipline and obedience, which is necessary to train Warriors. With this comes a real responsibility that extends beyond the physical. The Warrior, a truly disciplined Warrior at that stage of training, is going to follow the lead of the Drill Instructor because he or she has total trust in the Drill Instructor. The instructors set the tone, set the environment and if the tone is set in such a manner that it is frowned upon going to sick call because it is considered being weak, the trainee will opt not to go. If the tone is set to tough it out, the trainee is going to keep pushing no matter what because if one seeks aid one is a quitter. The applicant describes a scenario where Drill instructors would blame the trainee for having an injury that caused the trainee to fail a PT Test and then is discharged for the failure. She states the ownership is on the leadership and not the trainee because the trainee should have received proper medical care instead of being discharged to cover up the error in judgement. She requests the Board correct this error and look into the leadership at this training site to prevent countless other lives from being destroyed. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 October 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Entry Level Performance and Conduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 11 / JGA / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 1 December 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 August 2016 / 3 years, 25 days b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-1 / None / 3 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-9 contains guidance on entry level separations. It states a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if, at the time separation action is initiated, the Soldier has less than 180 days of continuous active duty service. Chapter 11 of AR 635-200 provides for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level status (ELS). An uncharacterized service description is normally granted to Soldiers separating under this chapter. A general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions and an honorable discharge (HD) is rarely ever granted. An HD may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her uncharacterized discharge to honorable conditions. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 11, by reason of Entry Level Performance and Conduct, with a characterization of service of Uncharacterized. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. A general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions is not authorized under ELS conditions and an honorable discharge (HD) is rarely ever granted. An HD may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. Further, the uncharacterized description of service accurately reflects the applicant's overall record of service. An uncharacterized discharge is neither positive nor negative and it is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service. It merely means that the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. The applicant contends that medical issues contributed to her discharge from the Army. However, the service record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant was separated due to her entry level performance and conduct. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. The applicant contends she should not have been discharged under Chapter 11 and her drill instructors created an environment where it was frowned upon for seeking medical treatment. However, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with her overall service record. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow veteran's benefits through the use of the VA. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge will allow her to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be her responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. Furthermore, the applicant seeks a change in her re-enlistment code in order to re-enlist in the future. The military review board has no authority to change re-enlistment code. The applicant is encouraged to seek assistance from her local recruiter for possible waiver to re-enlist in the future. Based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 October 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20170009596 1