1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 13 June 2017 b. Date Received: 14 June 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge characterization was an improper verdict from the chain of command and the applicant's injuries were not taken seriously by them. The applicant failed PT tests because of not being healthy for either one. The applicant pleaded with the medical staff for an MRI on both of knees. After failing the first APFT, the applicant was not provided remedial training as required by Army Regulations. The applicant believes that provided good health, would have exceeded the army standard of physical fitness. The applicant was not provided proper medical care. During the time in the Army, the applicant displayed proper military behavior, served faithfully, performed to the best of ability and there was no derogatory information in the military record. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 January 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Physical Standards / AR 635-200, Chapter 13 / Paragraph 13-2e / JFT / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 July 2016 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 May 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason for his discharge; he failed two record Army Physical Fitness Tests within a ninety day period. (3) Recommended Characterization: The unit and intermediate commanders recommended an Honorable characterization of service. (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 June 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 January 2015 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 years / HS Graduate / 105 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 15R10, AH-64 Attack Helicopter Repairer / 1 year, 6 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Mental Status Evaluation dated, 24 March 2016, relates that the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of occupation problem. He was screened for PTSD and mTBI, both screens were negative. There was no evidence of mental defect, emotional illness or psychiatric disorder of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through military medical channels. He was mentally responsible, could distinguish right from wrong and possessed sufficient mental capacity to understand and participate as a respondent in any administrative proceedings. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for PT test failure. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); and a Chapter 13-2e discharge packet (63 pages). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13-2e states in pertinent part, that separation proceedings will be initiated for Soldiers without medical limitations that have two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test. The reason for discharge will be shown as physical standards. The service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance for failure to meet physical standards will be characterized as honorable or general, under honorable conditions. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that the applicant's discharge was appropriate because of unsatisfactory performance which diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating either the command's action was erroneous or the applicant's service mitigated the duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending, his discharge characterization was an improper verdict from his chain of command; and his injuries were not taken seriously by those appointed over him. Per AR 635-200, paragraph 2-2c, the separation authority is not bound by the recommendations of the initiating or intermediate commander and has complete discretion to direct any type of discharge and characterization of service authorized by applicable provisions of this regulation. 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 applicant further contends, he failed PT tests because he was not healthy for either one; he pleaded with the medical staff for an MRI on both of knees. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was not healthy for either of his PT tests he did not receive an MRI on his knees. The applicant also contends, after he failed the first APFT, he was not provided remedial training as required by Army Regulations. There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was not provided remedial training. The applicant additionally contends, he believes that provided good health, he would have exceeded the Army standard of physical fitness. The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what he believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. Furthermore, the applicant contends, he was not provided proper medical care. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was not provided proper medical care. Lastly, the applicant contends, during his time with the Army, he displayed proper military behavior, served faithfully, performed to the best of his ability and there was no derogatory information in his military record. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his [her] service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 January 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20170010251 1