1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 4 August 2019 b. Date Received: 6 September 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, applicant was being represented by a Power of Attorney (POA) for the purposes of this board. The POA failed to appear and was contacted by the Board to confirm an inability to appear, the Board Presiding Officer (PO) was directed to proceeded with the board in the absence of the applicant. The applicant was never notified to appear before the board in the absence of the POA. In a records review conducted on 6 May 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 10 for PA 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: Failure to Meet Medical Procurement Standards / NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-35c(5)(a) / NA / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 27 August 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date Formal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings convened: 6 June 2019 (2) PEB Findings: The findings of the evaluating physicians indicate 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 diagnosed with: Psychotic Disorder and Cannabis Abuse (Dx 1). (3) Date Applicant Reviewed and Did Not Concur with the Findings, and Requested Discharge without Delay: 20 June 2019 (4) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 August 2019 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 February 2012 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / 16 Years / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 56M10, Chaplain Assistant / 7 years, 6 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: AD, 16 July 2012 – 17 November 2012 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCAM, NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: None i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: PEB, dated 6 June 2019, reflect the applicant was diagnosed with: Psychotic Disorder and Cannabis Abuse (Dx 1). The condition was noted at time of entrance on AD; or clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrates that disability existed prior to entrance on AD and was not aggravated by active military service. The condition Existed before service. If the Service Member's mental health problem had been detected at the time of enlistment, it would have prevented enlistment in the military per Army Regulation 40-501, Chapter 2-27. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 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), 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 135-178 prescribes the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. (1) Paragraph 2-9a prescribes an honorable characterization 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. (2) Paragraph 2-9b, prescribes, if a Soldier’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as general (under honorable conditions). Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of the Soldier’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the Soldier’s military record. (3) Chapter 6, prescribes the reasons a Soldier may be separated for the convenience of the Government. (4) Paragraph 6-6, states a discharge will be accomplished on determination that a Soldier was not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on IADT. A Soldier found to be not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards will be discharged on the earliest practical date following such determination and prior to entry on IADT. (5) Paragraph 6-8, prescribes the service of a Soldier separated under this chapter will be characterized as honorable, unless an uncharacterized description of service is required by paragraph 2–11, or a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) is warranted under chapter 2, section III. (6) Glossary states upon enlistment, a Soldier qualifies for entry level status during: The first 180 days of continuous active military service or the first 180 days of continuous active service after a service break of more than 92 days of active service. A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty or who is serving under a call or order to active duty for 180 days or less begins entry level status upon enlistment in a reserve component. Entry level status for such a member of a reserve component terminates as follows: 180 days after beginning training if the Soldier is ordered to ADT for one continuous period of 180 days or more; or, 90 days after the beginning of the second period of ADT if the Soldier is ordered to ADT under a program that splits the training into two or more separate periods of active duty. For the purposes of characterization of service, the Soldier’s status is determined by the date of notification as to the initiation of separation proceedings. e. National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, establishes standards, policies, and procedures for the management of the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) enlisted Soldiers in the functional areas of: Classification and Reclassification; Personnel Management; Assignment and Transfer, including interstate transfer; Special Duty Assignment Pay; Enlisted Separations; and Command Sergeant Major Program. (1) Chapter 6 sets the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted Soldiers from the ARNG/ARNGUS. (2) Paragraph 6-8a, prescribes an honorable characterization 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 6-b, prescribes if a Soldier’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as under honorable conditions. Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspect of the Soldier’s conduct or performance of duty outweighs positive aspects of the Soldier’s military record. (4) Paragraph 6-c, prescribes service may, but is not required to be characterized as under other than honorable conditions only when discharge is for misconduct, fraudulent entry, homosexual conduct, unsatisfactory participation, or security reasons, and the following circumstances. The AG will direct reduction in grade to PV1 per AR 600-8-19, paragraph 10-15 when the Soldier is discharged under other than honorable conditions. (5) Paragraph 6-35c(5)(a), provides for separation of enlisted Soldiers who are not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards. Including Soldiers who fail to meet medical procurement standards of AR 40-501, chapter 2 prior to entry on IET including positive urinalysis and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in entrance physicals: RE 3, or RE 4 for HIV. 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 requests a narrative reason change. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The proceedings of the PEB revealed the applicant had a medical condition, which was disqualifying for enlistment and existed prior to entry on in the Army National Guard. These findings were approved by competent medical authority and the applicant agreed with the findings and proposed action for administrative separation from the Army. The NGB Form 22, indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of NGR 600- 200, Paragraph 6-35c(5)(a), by reason of medically unfit of AR 40-501, with a characterization of service of honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 6-35c(5)(a), NGR 600-200, with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by NGR 600-200, for a discharge under this paragraph is “Medically Unfit.” Governing regulations stipulate no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the command never notified Soldier to appear before the board. 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. 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 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? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant had any conditions that outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – Failure to Meet Medical Procurement Standards. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention during proceedings and determined due to the applicant’s condition existing prior to service, therefore the narrative reason is appropriate as the applicant did not meet procurement standards. (2) The applicant contends the command never notified Soldier to appear before the board. The Board considered this contention, however, there is insufficient evidence provided to support this contention. 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 characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and 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 AR20190013207 1