1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 22 October 2018 b. Date Received: 19 August 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 a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, applicant disclosed to applicant’s recruiter the medical issue applicant was treated for during elementary school. The medical issue was corrected and has in no way affected applicant’s ability to pursue applicant’s goals. Had the applicant known a medical waiver was necessary, applicant would have had it completed. In a records review conducted on 11 March 2022, 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: Fraudulent Entry / AR 635-200, Chapter 7 / JDA / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 26 September 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 September 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 6 August 2918, the applicant was recommended for separation in accordance with AR 635-200, Chapter 5-11, EPTS. It was revealed during the counseling the applicant had prior knowledge of the condition which if known at the time of applicant’s enlistment would have precluded applicant from enlisting. Due to the nondisclosure the applicant fraudulently enlisted in the Army. (3) Recommended Characterization: Uncharacterized (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 September 2018 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 September 2018 / Uncharacterized 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: IADT 23 July 2018 / 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 2 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG 15 November 2017 – 22 July 2018 / UNC (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: None i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: An Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings, dated 6 August 2018, reflects the findings of the evaluating physician indicated the applicant was medically unfit for appointment or enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians the condition existed prior to service. The applicant was admitted to the inpatient behavioral health unit for suicidal ideation. The applicant presented with anxiety but declined medication and remained admitted. The applicant reported a history of treatment for anxiety in elementary school and took an antidepressant medication. The applicant’s mother stated the applicant saw a therapist for a few years for anxiety in elementary school and took an antidepressant medication for two years. The applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety. The provider stated if the applicant’s mental health problem had been detected at the time of enlistment, it would have prevented enlistment in the military. The provider recommended the applicant be expeditiously separated from active duty in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-11. The discharge authority directed the applicant be retained on active duty for separation in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 7-17. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149, DD Form 214, Correspondence from a member of Congress, 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 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), dated 25 September 2019, 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 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 7 provides the authority, criteria, and procedures for the separation of Soldiers because of erroneous enlistment, reenlistment, or extension of enlistment, defective enlistment agreement, or fraudulent entry. (5) Paragraph 7-17 prescribes a fraudulent entry is the procurement of an enlistment, reenlistment, or a period of active service through deliberate material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment of information which, if known and considered by the Army at the time of enlistment, reenlistment, might have resulted in rejection. This includes all waivable or nonwaivable disqualifying information. 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 “JDA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 7, Fraudulent Entry. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests the narrative reason for the discharge be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 7, AR 635-200 with an uncharacterized discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Fraudulent Entry,” and the separation code is “JDA.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends applicant disclosed to applicant’s recruiter the medical issue applicant was treated for during elementary school. The applicant contends the medical issue was corrected and has in no way affected applicant’s ability to pursue applicant’s goals and had applicant known a medical waiver was necessary, applicant would have had it completed. 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. The Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found no mitigating BH diagnoses on the applicant. The applicant provided no documents or testimony of a condition or experience, that, when applying liberal consideration, could have excused or mitigated a discharge. (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 applicant disclosed to applicant’s recruiter the medical issue applicant was treated for during elementary school. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support an upgrade to the applicant’s discharge. (2) The applicant contends the medical issue was corrected and has in no way affected applicant’s ability to pursue applicant’s goals and had applicant known a medical waiver was necessary, applicant would have had it completed. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support an upgrade to the applicant’s discharge. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. 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 there were no mitigating factors for the Board to consider, as the applicant was discharged for fraudulent entry, Uncharacterized is proper and equitable. 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 AR20190011188 1