IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 September 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200006464 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of her uncharacterized discharge to honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Food Service Specialist Course diploma * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * letter FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states she is a veteran rated at 70 percent disabled. Her case is a Military Sexual Trauma (MST) case. This was pointed out to her at the county’s assessor’s office. 3. The applicant provides her: * Food Service Specialist Course diploma, dated 25 January 1991 * DD Form 214 for the period from 20 September 1990 to 5 April 1991 * letter, dated 10 February 2020, wherein the Department of Veterans Affairs, advised she was awarded a 70% combined service-connected evaluation, effective 1 December 2019; the letter does not list her disabilities 4. Review of the applicant’s service records show: a. She enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 September 1990 for 2 years. She completed advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (Food Service Specialist). b. On 30 January 1991, the applicant’s immediate commander was notified of her hospitalization. c. On 31 January 1991, the Resident and Staff Psychiatrists, Inpatient Psychiatry Service, stated the applicant was evacuated by the Inpatient Psychiatry Service, on 30 January 1991, and diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features, alcohol intoxication (resolved), borderline personality disorder as by diagnostic criteria: boredom, impulsivity, boundary issues, all or none relations, emotional discontrol since age 15. She did not have a medically disqualifying psychiatric condition. That disorder significantly impaired her ability to function in the military. They recommended an entry level separation and stated retention could jeopardize her safety, that of her peers, and negatively affect the mission. d. On 4 February 1991, she received counseling for a chapter 11 entry level separation due to possible suicide attempts in the future. On the same date, she elected not to undergo a separation medical examination. e. On 25 February 1991, the applicant’s immediate commander notified the applicant of initiation to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11, paragraph 11-3a, for Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct. The commander stated the specific reasons for the proposed action was the applicant was unable to adept socially and emotionally to military life. She advised the applicant of her rights. f. On 5 March 1991, after consulting with counsel, she acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation action and the rights available to her and request an immediate discharge. She waived her rights and elected to submit a statement on her own behalf. In her statement, the applicant stated: (1) She did not believe her separation should happen. She did not agree with her psychiatrist’s diagnosis and recommendation to the company. She did not believe she had an adjustment disorder or a borderline personality disorder. He seemed to diagnose her by watching her at the ward 4A. He explained that his reasons for that diagnosis was he saw boredom, impulsivity, boundary issues, all or none relations, and emotional discontrol since age 15. She did not see how he could diagnose her as he did when he only talked to her once or twice. He did not see her interact with the other patients, other than group therapy, or community meetings; therefore, she did believe his diagnosis was correct. (2) This was a personal reason and she would do what she had to do to remain in the military. She always had a special respect for the military. She wanted to devote her life to in the military. For many years, she had dreamt of being in the military. She had tried so hard, and been so determined, and finally completed basic training and the 94B school. Currently, it seemed her dream was being taken away from her. Though there was no reason for the acts she committed, she was facing some problems with herself and her home life. There was nothing about the military that she disliked, she just had some inner problems to solve, which had been done. (3) The problem was controlling stress, and she had found some stress management exercises that were useful and helped should a stressful situation arise. There was no apparent reason she should be separated from the military. She understood there was some concern in her behavior and certain personnel were skeptical about that, but to them she would say the situation was taken care of. She requested assignment to the Individual Ready Reserve instead of her separation from the military. g. On 8 March 1991, the applicant’s intermediate commander recommended the applicant’s immediate discharge prior to her expiration of term of service. h. On 11 March 1991, the separation authority approved the applicant’s entry level separation, under the provisions of chapter 11-3(a), AR 635-200. i. She was discharged, in pay grade E-1, on 4 April 1991, under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 11-3(a). Her service was uncharacterized. Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows she completed 6 months and 16 days of net active service. j. Her record is void of any indication she mentioned MST during her separation processing and she provided no evidence to support this issue. k. There is no indication she petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statement of limitations. 5. By regulation AR 635-200, a Soldier may be separated in an entry-level status for unsatisfactory performance and/or conduct. An entry level separation (uncharacterized) is used for separation under these proceedings. Entry-level status is defined as the first 180 days of continuous service. The entry-level separation is given regardless of the reason for separation. An uncharacterized discharge is neither positive nor negative; it is not "derogatory" an uncharacterized character of service is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier’s military service; it merely means that the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. 6. In reaching its determination, the Board should consider the applicant's petition and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 7. MEDICAL REVIEW: The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s military service records. A review of her service record indicates she was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder on 30 January 1991. A review of the VA's Joint Legacy Viewer indicates she completed a Compensation and Pension Examination on 15 November 2016. The applicant reported she started having problems adjusting to military structure during advanced individual training. She reported two psychiatric hospitalizations following suicide attempts/gestures. She reported a MST while in training. She did not meet criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder and was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder II and Borderline Personality Disorder. She has a service connected disability rating of 70% for Bipolar Disorder. In accordance with the 3 September 2014 Secretary of Defense Liberal Guidance Memorandum and the 25 August 2017 Clarifying Guidance, there is documentation to support a behavioral health diagnosis at the time of her discharge. She met retention standards at the time of her discharge. Her discharge was uncharacterized due to length of service and not as a result of misconduct. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, a majority of the Board found that relief is not warranted. The majority noted that the applicant was not discharged due to misconduct, rather she received an entry-level separation based on her behavioral health diagnoses. The majority noted that uncharacterized service is neither positive or negative, and only means a Soldier has not served long enough to fairly characterize his or her service. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the majority determined the applicant's uncharacterized service is not in error or unjust. 2. The member in the minority noted the applicant's behavioral health diagnoses during her service and her current diagnoses and found this evidence sufficient to support a recommendation for partial relief. The member in the minority determined the applicant's character of service should be changed to honorable. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : :X : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X : :X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3 year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Separations), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation stated in: a. Chapter 3- an uncharacterized separation is an entry-level separation. A separation would be described as an entry-level separation if processing was initiated while a member was in entry-level status. For the purposes of characterization of service, the Soldier’s status was determined by the date of notification as to the initiation of separation proceedings. Upon enlistment, a Soldier qualified for entry level status during the first 180 days of continuous active military service. b. Paragraph 3-7a – an honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. c. Paragraph 11-3(a) – separation of a Soldier in entry level status could be warranted on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance and/or unsatisfactory conduct as evidenced by: * inability * lack of reasonable effort * failure to adapt to the military environment * minor disciplinary infractions d. Paragraph 11-8 – service would be described as uncharacterized under the provisions of this chapter. 3. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief based on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20200006464 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1