1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 7 January 2020 b. Date Received: 13 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 uncharacterized. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable conditions. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge is inequitable because the mental health condition rendered the applicant incapable of military service. The applicant states, after an inpatient stay for depression, being informed by the commander and another officer who was also a patient, that the discharge would be upgraded to honorable after six months. The applicant states the way the drill sergeants communicated during basic training severely impacted the applicant’s mental health. The applicant states their communication style had worsened the anxiety and depression. The applicant states being a good trainee during basic training with a goal of following in the steps of his father and grandfather to join the Army and become a cook. The applicant states being unaware the mental health would be affected by the military. The applicant further states while in junior high school, there was a lot of bullying and the experience of two friends committing suicide also had a traumatic effect. The applicant was faced with a decision to do something with his life and decided the military would be just what was needed. The applicant states, in preparation for basic training, he watched YouTube videos of drill sergeant yelling at trainees. The applicant states not being prepared because the yelling and stress took a tool on his mental wellbeing and after basic training and during Christmas break the applicant became very depressed. The applicant states after returning from Christmas break, he checked into John Randolph Hospital due to suicidal ideation. The applicant states if they didn’t have the depressive disorder, the military would have been a career. Since the discharge, the applicant works at a warehouse as a picker and is enrolled into the local community college pursing a degree in business, with an emphasis in cybersecurity. The applicant states the discharge upgrade would allow eligibility for the educational benefits. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 16 November 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: Failed Medical/Physical/Procurement Standards / AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-11 / JFW / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 26 March 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) convened: 27 February 2019 (2) EPSBD 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: Learning, psychiatric and behavioral disorder, history of suicidal behavior, including gestures or attempts, self-mutilation and cutting. (3) Date Applicant Reviewed and Concurred with the Findings, and Requested Discharge without Delay: 7 March 2019 (4) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 14 March 2019 / Uncharacterized 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 September 2018 / 3 years, 24 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-1 / None / 7 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: One Developmental Counseling Form, Notifying the applicant of a Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag) due to involuntary separation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: EPSBD findings as described in previous paragraph 3c (2). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Self-Authored Statement; Copy of Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings; DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is working at a warehouse as a picker and is in line to become a security officer. The applicant is also enrolled into the local community college pursuing a degree in business, with an emphasis in cybersecurity. 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 that 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. (6) Paragraph 5-10 (previously paragraph 5-11), specifically provides that Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards, when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty or active-duty training or initial entry training will be separated. A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within six months of the Soldier’s initial entrance on active duty, that the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the Soldier for entry into the military service had it been detected at that time, and the medical condition does not disqualify the Soldier from retention in the service under the provisions of AR 40-501, Chapter 3. (7) Glossary prescribes 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. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes), in effect at the time, provided 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 “JFW” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-11, Failed Medical/ Physical/ Procurement Standards. 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: 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) of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The proceedings of the EPSBD revealed the applicant had a medical condition, which was disqualifying for enlistment and existed prior to entry on active duty. 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 applicant contends having a mental health condition, anxiety, and depression, that was made worse by the way the drill sergeants communicated. The applicant contends after an inpatient stay for depression, being informed by the commander and another officer who was also a patient, that the discharge would be upgraded to honorable after six months. The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both were improper or inequitable. The applicant contends bullying in junior high school and experienced two friends commit suicide which had a lasting traumatic affect. The proceedings of the EPSBD, dated 27 February 2019, revealed the applicant had a medical condition, which was disqualifying for enlistment and existed prior to entry on active duty. The applicant contends good service. The Board will consider the applicant service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the 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. The applicant contends having employment at a warehouse, being is in line for promotion to security guard, and is enrolled in college pursuing a career in business, with an emphasis on cybersecurity. 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? No. The applicant was not discharged for misconduct, rather, the discharge was based on applicant’s failure to meet the Army’s medical procurement standards for medical retention during their entry-level status. Therefore, there was no mitigation based on applicant’s medical conditions. The applicant’s conditions which EPTS include learning disability, psychiatric and behavioral disorder, history of suicidal behavior including gestures or attempts, self-mutilation and cutting, were not exacerbated by service therefore do not fall under liberal consideration. (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 Contentions: (1) The applicant contends having a mental health condition, anxiety and depression, that was made worse by the way the drill sergeants communicated. The Board considered this contention and determined that the severity of the applicant’s conditions, which existed prior to military service, were service-limiting and warranted discharge. There is no evidence of the command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner, and the discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends after an inpatient stay for depression, being informed by the commander and another officer who was also a patient, that the discharge would be upgraded to honorable after six months. There is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to 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. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant was not discharged for misconduct, but rather pre-existing mental health conditions that were service-limiting, thus an upgrade to the discharge is not warranted. (3) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered this contention and 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. (4) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the 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. (5) The applicant contends having employment at a warehouse, being in line for promotion to security guard, and is enrolled in college pursuing a career in business, with an emphasis on cybersecurity. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined the current discharge is appropriate, and applicant’s post-service accomplishments do not outweigh the pre-existing conditions for which the applicant was discharged. 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 contentions 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 learning, psychiatric and behavioral disorder, history of suicidal behavior, including gestures or attempts, self-mutilation and cutting 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 under the same pretexts. Based on these facts, panel members agreed the current narrative reason is appropriate, 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 AR20200002869 1