1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 January 2020 b. Date Received: 10 January 2020 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, physical disabilities prevented the applicant from passing the Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFT). The applicant requests an upgrade due to being a disabled veteran receiving veteran's benefits. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 21 October 2022, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's circumstances surrounding the discharge (MST). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. 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: Physical Standards / AR 635-200 / Chapter 13-2E / JFT / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 5 December 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 November 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed two consecutive Army Physical Fitness Tests. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 13 November 2018, the applicant waived the right to consult with an attorney. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 November 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 April 2016 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 86 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 2 years, 2 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 September 2018, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293-2 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 13-2e states in pertinent part, that separation proceedings will be initiated for Soldiers without medical limitations that have two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test. The reason for discharge will be shown as physical standards. The serviced of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance for failure to meet physical standards will be characterized as honorable or general (under honorable conditions). (5) 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. 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 Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant contends physical disabilities prevented the ability to pass the APFT. The applicant requests an upgrade due to being a disabled veteran receiving veteran's benefits. The board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. 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 is service connected for an Adjustment Disorder. Of note, the VA diagnosed PTSD based on self-asserted combat for which there is no support. Additionally, the applicant goes back and forth on whether she experienced an MST. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. Symptoms related to difficulty adjusting may have been present in-service. Whether or not the applicant experienced an MST or trauma is unknown given the varying reports and lack of support for asserted combat. (3) Does the condition or experience excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant's Adjustment Disorder would not mitigate the basis for separation. Even if APFT failure was purposeful as a means of exiting service, an Adjustment Disorder does not render an individual unable to make conscious choices understanding the consequences. Regarding the PTSD diagnosis, as it is based in an unconfirmed deployment, it is not applied due to validity concerns. However, the Board could consider the applicant's report of unwanted sexual attention, which at certain points in case has been labeled MST, in deliberations. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. 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 physical disabilities prevented the ability to pass the APFT. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's circumstances surrounding the discharge (MST). (2) The applicant requests an upgrade due to being a disabled veteran receiving veteran's benefits. ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant's time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member's discharge characterization. In this case, the Board considered this contention and voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service. c. The Board determined the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's circumstances surrounding the discharge (MST). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's circumstances surrounding the discharge (MST) and the applicant's length of service. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20200002738 1