1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 April 2019 b. Date Received: 17 May 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is uncharacterized. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, she was discharged due to medical circumstances. She was unable to fulfill her full term because she was injured while in basic training and AIT. Even though she was unable to fulfill her full term, she returned home and began working and reentered the activities in her community. In 2018, she spoke with someone about leaving the military and the terms of leaving and her discharge. She started receiving disability for her injuries. She believes she received the wrong discharge because she did not, have any behavior issues only medical issues. An upgrade would open many doors for her and the type of jobs she can get and receiving, full benefits for her injuries. In a records review conducted on 27 August 2021, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (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: 11 May 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 May 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: She failed to adapt to the military environment. (3) Recommended Characterization: Uncharacterized (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 5 May 2016, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / Uncharacterized 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 February 2016 / NIF (IADT) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-1 / None / 6 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 23 October 2015 - 31 January 2016 / NA (Concurrent Service) 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; two third-party letters. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, she began working and reentered the activities in her community. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides 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), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides 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, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification 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. (2) 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. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier'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. (3) Paragraph 3-9 states a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status. (4) Chapter 11 provides for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level status (ELS). (5) Paragraph 11-3a (2) stipulates the policy applies to Soldiers who are in entry-level status, undergoing IET, and, before the date of the initiation of separation action, have completed no more than 180 days of creditable continuous AD or IADT or no more than 90 days of Phase II under a split or alternate training option. (See the glossary for precise definition of entry-level status.) (6) Paragraph 11-8, stipulates service will be described as uncharacterized under the provisions of this chapter. (7) Glossary defines entry-level status for ARNGUS and USAR Soldiers, entry-level status begins upon enlistment in the ARNG or USAR. For Soldiers ordered to IADT for one continuous period, it terminates 180 days after beginning training. For Soldiers ordered to IADT for the split or alternate training option, it terminates 90 days after beginning Phase II advanced individual training (AIT). (Soldiers completing Phase I BT or basic combat training remain in entry-level status until 90 days after beginning Phase II.) e. 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 "JGA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, entry level performance and conduct. f. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JGA" will be assigned an RE Code of "3." 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. 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. The applicant contends, the discharge should have been for medical reasons. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant contends, she received the wrong discharge because she did not have any behavior issues. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends, she returned home and began working and reentered the activities in her community. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The applicant contends, in 2018 she started receiving disability from the Veterans Administration for her injuries. The Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during the discharge processing, warranting separation processing through medical channels. The applicant contends, an upgrade would allow more opportunity for jobs. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends, an upgrade will allow her to receive full benefits for her injuries. 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good conduct after leaving the Army. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. As this was an Uncharacterized discharge and did not involve misconduct, Liberal Consideration does not apply to this case. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? N/A (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, the discharge should have been for medical reasons. Uncharacterized is the proper characterization of service as the applicant's service was not long enough to be properly assessed. Applicant was unable to complete basic training, leading to the ELS discharge. (2) The applicant contends, she received the wrong discharge because she did not have any behavior issues. There were no behavior issues named in discharge documentation. The applicant was discharged for failure to adapt. (3) The applicant contends, she returned home and began working and reentered the activities in her community. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post- service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. (4) The applicant contends, in 2018 she started receiving disability from the Veterans Administration for her injuries. The ADRB is not bound by U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions, nor do VA decisions have any bearing on the decisions of the ADRB. Decisions reached by the VA to determine if former service members rate certain VA benefits do not affect previous discharge decisions made by the Department of the Army. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the Army when determining a member's discharge characterization. (5) The applicant contends, an upgrade would allow more opportunity for jobs. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (6) The applicant contends, an upgrade will allow her to receive full benefits for her injuries. Eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill or healthcare, do 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. c. The Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. The Board determined that the documentation contained in the AMHRR, as well as evidence submitted by the applicant, and the available medical evidence did not support a finding that the applicant's discharge was improper or inequitable. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because the applicant's service was too short to be properly assessed, thus the Uncharacterized discharge. The applicant did not supply sufficient independent corroborating evidence to support contentions, and 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20190007371 1