1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 14 November 2019 b. Date Received: 12 December 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 honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, an upgrade would allow the applicant to use the Post 9/11 GI Bill. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 5 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: Disability, Existed Prior to Service, PEB (Enhanced) / AR 635-40, Paragraph 4-24 / JEE / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 1 September 2019 c. Separation Facts: According to DD Form 199, Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings: (1) Date Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) convened: 18 June 2019 (2) Medical Condition Determined to be Unfitting / Disability: Inoperable schwannoma cranial nerve II with ptosis and diplopia (Existed prior to service). (3) IPEB Findings: For pre-existing findings without aggravation: Clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrated that disability existed prior to entrance on AD and was not aggravated by active military service. The IPEB findings included: Although the MEB indicated this condition did not exist prior to military service, there is clear and unmistakable evidence that indicates this condition did exist prior to military service. The condition manifested so close to entry that accepted medical principles support the condition, cranial nerve Ill schwannoma, existed prior to military service. Schwannomas are benign, slow growing tumors of the nerve sheath with neurologic symptoms presenting late in the development of the tumor. Schwannoma of the oculomotor nerve (cranial nerve Ill) are extremely rare. The Soldier entered military service on 15 October 2018 (BASD). The Soldier first presented to the emergency room on 28 October 2018, stating being unable to open an eyelid. On 29 October 2018, the Soldier received treatment at a clinic at Fort Benning Georgia, while undergoing basic combat training. The clinical note from that date stated the Soldier reported the left eyelid began drooping two to three days ago and had visual changes one week prior to this clinic visit. Therefore, the visual changes started on approximately 22 October 2018, one week after beginning military service. The Soldier subsequently received immediate care by an Ophthalmologist and Neuro- Ophthalmologist who diagnosed the schwannoma based on results of the examination and MRI imaging study. The Neuro-Ophthalmologist recommended against surgical intervention due to the risks involved. There was clear and unmistakable evidence the condition, cranial nerve Ill schwannoma, was not permanently service aggravated. Worsening of the condition was due to natural progression. The medical record reflects the Soldier stating not having any trauma to the eyes after entering military service. The symptoms began spontaneously. Therefore, the condition is not compensable because the evidence overcomes both the presumption of soundness and the presumption of permanent service aggravation IAW DoDI 1332.18, Enc. 3, App. 3, para.7. This condition is medically unacceptable and prevents worldwide deployment in a field or austere environment. Therefore, IAW AR 635-40, 5-4e(2) the Soldier is unfit. [References: https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/4767/schwannoma ; https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1256405-overview]. (DA 3947, NARSUM, DA 7652, DA 3349, VA C&P Exam) The IPEB found the applicant physically unfit and recommended separation without benefits. (4) Date PEB Presiding Officer Authentication: 18 June 2019 (5) Date Applicant Advised of PEB Findings and Recommendations: 25 June 2019 (6) Date Applicant Reviewed, Concurred, and Made an Election: On 25 June 2019, the applicant concurred and waived a formal hearing of the case. (7) Applicant’s Elected Additional Option(s): The applicant did not request reconsideration of the VA ratings. (8) Date USAPDA Authentication for the Secretary of The Army: 3 July 2019 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 October 2018 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 19D10, Calvary Scout / 10 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: DD Form 199, Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, described at the previous paragraph 3c. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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 635-40, establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System according to the provisions of chapter 61, title 10, United States Code (10 USC 61) and Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 1332.18. It sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. If a Soldier is found unfit because of physical disability, this regulation provides for disposition of the Soldier according to applicable laws and regulations. The objectives of this regulation are to maintain an effective and fit military organization with maximum use of available manpower and provide benefits for eligible Soldiers whose military service is terminated because of a service- connected disability; and, provide prompt disability processing while ensuring that the rights and interests of the Government and the Soldier are protected. (1) Paragraph 4-22 pertaining to an informal physical evaluation board (IPEB) process, in pertinent part, states all cases will be initially adjudicated by an IPEB. The IPEB conducts a documentary review of the case file without the presence of the Soldier to make an initial decision on the Soldier’s fitness for continued service. The IPEB may obtain additional documents necessary for proper adjudication and will include them in the case file. If the IPEB discusses the case with personnel outside USAPDA to obtain information used in the adjudication, the presiding officer will ensure a memorandum for record regarding the discussion is included in the case file. This memorandum will be provided to the Soldier’s legal counsel, if any. The IPEB will make the determinations according to the adjudication policy of chapter 5 of AR 635-40. These determinations are documented on DA Form 199 (Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings (EGA)). All PEB findings, to include initial findings and any revised findings (to include those reflecting subsequent considerations due to a Soldier’s statement of rebuttal to an IPEB finding), will be presented in an orderly and itemized fashion with specific attention to each issue. The findings and determinations include whether any medical conditions individually or collectively cause the Soldier to be unfit for continued military Service; whether the unfitting medical conditions were incurred or aggravated in the LOD; and if an unfitting condition is not compensable, the rationale for this determination. For all cases with a finding of a pre-existing medical condition without aggravation, of conditions incurred while on active-duty orders of over 30 days, a discussion of the clear and unmistakable evidence establishing such a determination with citation to the specific well established medical principle. The Soldier has the following option to IPEB decisions: accept the PEB decision, thereby waiving the right to a formal hearing. The presiding officer then signs the PEB’s findings and forwards the case to USAPDA for any required or quality assurance reviews and final processing. (2) Paragraph 5–4e(2) pertaining to reasonable performance of duties, states in general, with the exception of cases adjudicated under the presumption of fitness rule, determining whether a Soldier’s medical impairments preclude the Soldier from reasonably performing their duties will be determined based on the factors, in pertinent part, applicable to the applicant’s case, as to the ability to deploy, the PEB considers whether the Soldier (Active Army and RC) is deployable individually or as part of a unit, with or without prior notification, to any location specified by the Army. Except for the cases identified in paragraphs 5–4e(1)(a) and 5–4e(1)(b), the PEB will find Soldiers unfit who are medically disqualified for worldwide deployment in a field or austere environment. e. 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) Paragraph 3–9a (uncharacterized separations for entry-level status (ELS) separation), states a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status, except when: (1) Characterization under other than honorable conditions is authorized under the reason for separation and is warranted by the circumstances of the case; and (2) 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. (5) Paragraph 3-9a(3) states a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status, except when a Soldier is on active duty with less than 181 days of continuous active military service, has completed IET, has been awarded an MOS, and has reported for duty at a follow-on unit of assignment (see para 11–3c). RC Soldiers will receive a characterization of service as “honorable” upon successful completion of IET. b. 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 “SFJ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, Chapter 4-24b(1), Disability, Permanent. c. 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: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 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 Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) record of service, the issues submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. Army Regulation 635-200 states a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if, at the time separation action is initiated, the Soldier has less than 180 days of continuous active-duty service. The evidence of the record reflects the applicant was notified on 25 June 2019 of the intent to initiate separation proceedings from the Army through the IPEB proceedings. At the time of the notification, the applicant had over 180 days, which is normally outside of the ELS window. However, the initial findings and research into the applicant’s tumor began just 2 weeks into the applicant’s service, on 28 October 2018. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow the applicant to use the Post 9/11 GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits to include educational benefits under the Post 9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill 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. 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? N/A. The applicant was not discharged for misconduct, rather, the discharge was based on applicant’s cranial nerve tumor existed prior to and was not exacerbated in service and determined to be service-limiting. Therefore, there was no mitigation based on applicant’s medical conditions. (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): The applicant contends an upgrade would allow using the Post 9/11 GI Bill. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, 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. Furthermore, the Board determined that UNC is the proper characterization of service as the applicant’s service was not long enough to be properly assessed. 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 uncharacterized description of service accurately reflects the applicant’s overall record of service. An uncharacterized discharge is neither positive nor negative and it is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier’s military service. It means the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for a character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. 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. Although the applicant was discharge over 180-day threshold typically reserved for ELS there is clear and unmistakable evidence that indicates this condition did exist prior to military service. The condition manifested so close to entry that accepted medical principles support the condition, cranial nerve Ill schwannoma, existed prior to military service. Schwannomas are benign, slow growing tumors of the nerve sheath with neurologic symptoms presenting late in the development of the tumor. Schwannoma of the oculomotor nerve (cranial nerve Ill) are extremely rare. The Soldier entered military service on 15 October 2018 (BASD). The Soldier first presented to the emergency room on 28 October 2018, stating being unable to open an eyelid. The Board voted to maintain that 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 condition that pre-existed the applicant’s service manifested within 2 weeks of service and was not exacerbated by service, as such the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, the applicant’s condition is service-limiting. ? 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 AR20200002630 1