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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, there were aspirations to be like the applicant's parent who was a Cavalry Scout. The applicant states before graduating high school, the contract to become a Cavalry Scout was already signed. The applicant states after graduating Airborne School orders for Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), Alaska 1/40th Cavalry Squadron were received. The applicant states being ambitious and held at a high standard and had the desire to deploy overseas and become an NCO before the first contract was over, similar to the father. Although the applicant did not deploy, states everything was going as planned until the last full year of the contract. The applicant states marital problems contributed to stress eating and the first APFT failure. The applicant states began drinking after as an outcast because of inability to pass the APFT test. The applicant states was warned if did not pass the next two APFT tests, would be chaptered out and began remedial APFT training. The applicant states turned to alcohol because of how the other Soldiers were acting, as if the applicant was already gone. The applicant began focusing on doing remedial APFT but states no matter what was done, could not get cardio back to speed because of eating habits and alcoholism. The applicant failed the next two APFT tests and as expected, was informed chapter paperwork was being worked on. The applicant began applying for jobs immediately and found one that was interested. The applicant states was still trying to pass the last two APFT tests but wanted to make sure it was ok with employment if unsuccessful. Prior to the discharge, the applicant was sent to Bridgeport, California to conduct training with the Marines and unit. Leadership thought the treacherous mountains would beat the applicant into shape but the applicant states this was a complete failure. The applicant failed the next APFT tests and felt leadership and peers had completely given up. The applicant states was crushed since joining the Army to follow in the father's footsteps but instead was being kicked out because of an inability to pass the APFT. The applicant states received the chapter paperwork and was upset and felt betrayed after seeing characterization was a General (Under Honorable Conditions). The applicant states how can a Soldier get caught stealing from the PX/Shoppette be awarded a General (Under Honorable Conditions) making APFT failures just as bad as the theft. The applicant states was a hard worker and hopes the Board can see the inequity. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 7 December 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service and the relatively minor misconduct. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635- 200, Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 9 January 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: The date is not legible on the memorandum. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for failing two consecutive Army Physical Fitness Tests. (3) Recommended Characterization: The recommendation is not legible on the memorandum. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 21 September 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 November 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 November 2012 / 3 years, 24 weeks (On 23 October 2014, the applicant extended his enlistment to a period of 3 years, 1 month, 24 weeks) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 85 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 19D10, Calvary Scout / 3 years, 2 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR, OSR Per the Commander's Report, the applicant received the GWOTSM on 5 November 2012, however, it is not reflected on the latest DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for failing the APFT test. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 August 2015, reflects the applicant was 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. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Self-Authored Statement; DD Form 214. 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), 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 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. (5) Paragraph 13-8, prescribes for the service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records. 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 "JHJ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance. 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 applicant contends marital problems contributed to the stress and began to eat which caused the applicant to fail the first APFT teste. The applicant states began drinking after feeling as an outcast because of the inability to pass the APFT test ultimately caused the APFT failures and discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends being harassed by his peers and the chain of command. There is no evidence in the record the applicant reported the harassment to the chain of command or the appropriate authorities. 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 other Soldiers with worse offenses were given the same discharge that was given to the applicant. Applicable regulations state each case must be decided on an individual basis, considering the unique facts and circumstances about that particular case. 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 Board's Medical Advisor reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found the applicant had no mitigating BH diagnoses. The applicant provided no documents or testimony of an in-service condition or experience, that, when applying liberal consideration, could have excused or mitigated a discharge (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): (1) The applicant contends family issues and harassment affected eating habits and alcoholism that ultimately caused the APFT failures and discharge. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with family issues and harassment, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board considered this contention non-persuasive during its deliberations. (2) The applicant contends good service. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant's service record. Ultimately, the board decided relief was warranted based on the discharge being too harsh for the offense. (3) The applicant contends other Soldiers with worse offenses were given the same discharge. The Board considered this contention, but reviews each discharge on a case-by- case basis since each case is unique and the complete facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged comparable offenses are not known, the Board cannot apply a comparison. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service and the relatively minor misconduct. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's length of service and the relatively minor misconduct. 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, Unsatisfactory Performance is proper and equitable for PT failures. (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 AR20200002896 1