1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 13 November 2019 b. Date Received: 19 November 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is uncharacterized. The applicant requests an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, while in basic training, the applicant states there was an incident while completing laundry. The applicant states there was concern of having a heart attack or some type of attack which made the applicant faint. The applicant went to the clinic to see the doctor and they stated that it sounded like a panic attack and was sent back to the unit. The applicant states there was never a diagnosis until being assigned to Fort Benning GA, where there was medication (Zoloft) prescribed which, the applicant never took before, or any medication for any mental health conditions. The applicant was sent into a room with a doctor on the video screen and was told that the applicant would be discharged from the Army due to medical and would be receiving a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant was sent home and reported to the National Guard Unit the very next day after being home. The National Guard Unit told the applicant to report to the Rio Rancho Unit and issued the applicant the paperwork and was told that he would be contacted by the unit for the next steps. The applicant stated he was never contacted, and never received any additional medication which the applicant ran out of. The applicant states receiving a discharge letter stating he was discharged. The applicant further states it was not his choice and feels the discharge from the Army was because of something he was diagnosed with in the Army. The applicant truly believes that he deserves to have a discharge supporting this just like any other injury. The applicant has done very well in life, a college graduate, schoolteacher/coach, and part of an organization that support veterans. The applicant believes that he was diagnosed with a disorder in the Army and is not looking for compensation; however, just want the discharge the applicant deserves. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 17 October 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: Condition, Not a Disability / AR 635- 200, Chapter 5-17 / JFV / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 20 August 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 February 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 19 February 2009, the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and a panic disorder without agoraphobia. (3) Recommended Characterization: Uncharacterized (4) Legal Consultation Date: 25 February 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 March 2009 / Uncharacterized 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: IADT / 5 January 2009 / 15 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / None / 2 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 29 August 2008 – 4 January 2009 / UNC (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: One Developmental Counseling Form, dated 19 February 2009, reflecting the applicant was being separated for inability to meet medical standards, IAW AR 635-200, Chapter 5-17. The applicant was counseled both written and verbally for the condition, Panic Disorder with Adjustment Disorder. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 February 2009, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with Panic Disorder without Agoraphobia, Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, Family Issues. It was recommended the applicant be given an administrative separation IAW AR 635-200, Chapter 5-17, Condition, Not a Disability. The applicant was medically and psychologically cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; NGB Form 22; Discharge Orders; National Personnel Records Center request memo response. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant indicates doing very well in life, a college graduate, schoolteacher/coach, and part of an organization that support veterans. 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. Unless the DCS, G – 1,on a case-by-case basis, determines that characterization of service as honorable is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty. This characterization is authorized when the Soldier is separated by reason of selected changes in service obligation, convenience of the Government, and Secretarial plenary authority. (4) Chapter 5 provides for the basic separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government. (5) Paragraph 5-1, states a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, general (under honorable conditions), or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status. A general (under honorable conditions) discharge is normally inappropriate for individuals separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-14 (previously paragraph 5-17) unless properly notified of the specific factors in the service that warrant such characterization. (6) Paragraph 5-14 (previously paragraph 5-17) specifically provides that a Soldier may be separated for other physical or mental conditions not amounting to a disability, which interferes with assignment to or performance of duty and requires that the diagnosis be so severe that the Soldier’s ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired. (7) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army’s best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary’s approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. (8) Glossary defines entry-level status for RA Soldiers is the first 180 days of continuous AD or the first 180 days of continuous AD following a break of more than 92 days of active military service. 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 “JFV” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-14 (previously Chapter 5-17), Condition, Not a Disability. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: NA 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 an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service indicates, the applicant, while in training status, was evaluated by competent medical authority and determined the applicant had Panic Disorder with Adjustment Disorder. It was determined these injuries would prevent the applicant from completing training. The applicant contends he was never diagnosed with or took medication for any mental health condition until being assigned to Fort Benning GA, therefor the applicant should have received a discharge based off a diagnosis the applicant received while in the Army. The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of Panic Disorder without Agoraphobia, Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, and family issues. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) / behavioral health evaluation (BHE) on 19 February 2009, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The applicant contends he was told he would be getting a discharge for medical reason and a general (under honorable conditions) discharge but that wasn’t what he received. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends after reporting to the unit, he was instructed to report to the Rio Rancho Unit where the applicant would be given the next steps. The applicant states he was never contacted or given any additional medication, instead, the applicant received paperwork stating he was discharged. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends he is now a college graduate, schoolteacher/coach and part of an organization that support veterans. 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. 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? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: The applicant was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder and Panic Disorder without Agoraphobia in-service; however, noted panic attacks originated pre-enlistment. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder and Panic Disorder without Agoraphobia in-service; however, noted panic attacks originated pre-enlistment. (3) Does the condition or experience excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there was no error in the process or procedures; all regulations and guidance was followed. While the applicant feels the diagnosis warrants a medical discharge, like a physical disability, medical records do not support this. Additionally, although the applicant asserts the condition was incurred in-service, records reflect a pre-enlistment history. While liberal consideration was applied, the applicant did not experience a liberal consideration experience, i.e., MST or IPV, or misdiagnosed with potential for a discharge error. Accordingly, the discharge was proper and equitable. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB determined that the condition or experience did not outweigh the basis of separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends he was never diagnosed with or took medication for any mental health conditions until being assigned to Fort Benning GA, therefore he should have received a discharge based off a diagnosis he received while in the Army. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of no pre-existing medical condition or medication; however, the Board determined the applicant did not provide supporting documentation by a qualified medical professional to state otherwise or provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board determined that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. (2) The applicant contends he was told he would be getting a discharge for medical reason and therefore receiving a general (under honorable conditions) discharge but that isn’t what he received. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board decided that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends he is now a college graduate, grade school teacher/coach and part of an organization that support veterans. The ADRB is authorized to consider post- service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, no law or regulation provides an unfavorable discharge that must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board may consider the outstanding post- service conduct and the applicant’s performance and conduct during the service under review during proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate that previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. In this case, the Board decided the discharge was proper and equitable. c. The Board determined the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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. Since the applicant was discharged for failing medical procurement standards due to panic-attack diagnosis prior to military service, 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, 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 AR20200002396 1