1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 September 2017 b. Date Received: 28 September 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, while assigned to the HHC 10th BSB, 1st Brigade, Fort Drum, New York, the applicant had successfully completed several APFTs prior to failing a scheduled APFT six months prior to being separated. Although the applicant significantly improved on the second APFT, which was 30 days later, the applicant still failed it. The applicant did not receive any counseling for failing either tests. The applicant passed the no prior notice APFT approximately 60 days later. The applicant had continued to work hard on the PT regiment and it showed on this last APFT. The applicant was verbally counseled by SSG W., the platoon sergeant, after that APFT. The applicant was informed about being separated should the applicant fail another APFT. However, a week after being counseled, the First Sergeant presented the applicant with the separation packet and informed the applicant that the General Discharge would be upgraded to Honorable in six months. This was shortly before ETS. The applicant feels the current discharge was wrong and should have been a fully Honorable discharge. The applicant served well and faithfully, deployed to Afghanistan for a year, served with NATO (German Forces), and was recognized with a NATO award and an AAM for service. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate diagnoses of Adjustment disorder with Anxiety and Depression. In summary, the applicant did not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 April 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of OBH). 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: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635- 200, Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 29 February 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 January 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant, without medical limitation, failed two consecutive Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFTs) per Army Regulation 350-1. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 19 January 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: In an undated memorandum / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 31 December 2008 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92G10, Food Service Operations Specialist / 3 years, 2 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan 26 March 2010 to 13 March 2011. f. Awards and Decorations: AAM; AGCM; NDSM; ACM-CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR; NATO MDL; MUC g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard, dated 5 August 2011, indicates the applicant received a total point of 96, and a record fail comment. Counseling statement, dated 12 August 2011, indicates a discussion of reasons for the applicant's record APFT failure, possible consequences, and courses of actions to correct performance. Negative counseling statement for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time and disobeying a lawful order. An Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard, with an inconclusive date, indicates the applicant received a total point of 159, and a record failure of APFT and height/weight comment. Body Fat Content Worksheet, dated 2 November 2011, indicates the applicant was not in compliance with body fat standard according to AR 600-9. Counseling statement, dated 17 November 2011, indicates a discussion of the applicant's second consecutive APFT failure, and that he would be recommended for separation due to failing two consecutive APFTs. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Reports of Medical Examination, Medical History, and Medical Assessment, dated 29 November 2011, indicates the applicant and examiner noted behavioral health issues and treatment. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 December 2011, indicates an "AXIS I" diagnosis of an "Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood." The applicant was cleared for an administrative separation. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 26 September 2017. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JFT" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 13-2e as Physical Standards. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JFT" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. It also identifies the SPD code of "JHJ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Performance. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JHJ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given 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; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service and the issues submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's service record confirms that the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. The record further confirms he was discharged for the sole reason of failing to meet the minimum standards of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) by failing two consecutive APFTs. However, the service record does not contain any other derogatory information. The record shows the applicant received an AGCM for service through 30 December 2011, and the unit commander had recommended him for an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, paragraph 13-2e states, in pertinent part, that separation proceedings will be initiated for Soldiers without medical limitations who have two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test, and AR 635-5-1, specifies that the reason for discharge will be shown as physical standards. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because although he significantly improved on the second APFT, which was 30 days later, he still failed it, he passed the no prior notice APFT approximately 60 days later; he had continued to work hard on his PT regiment and it showed on this last APFT; and his First Sergeant presented him with his separation packet shortly before his ETS date and informed him that the General Discharge would be upgraded to Honorable in six months. However, 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 his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the two APFT failures, the Board can find that his accomplishments and complete period of service were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. Although the applicant did not present any behavioral health issues, a careful review of the available record indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. 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 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 12 April 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of OBH). 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 AR20170017053 1