1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 13 February 2020 b. Date Received: 20 February 2020 c. Counsel: Yes 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, the applicant received a medical discharge after being diagnosed with degenerative scoliosis, but never had back pain before entering the Army. The physician asked the applicant would the applicant want to sign a waiver and change Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) or separation with a medical discharge, the applicant decided to separate. Before this medical issue, the applicant was completing training to Army standards without any problems. The applicant believes the medical injury was caused by an order given by leadership to wear a camel pack under the applicant’s rucksack before a long march. The applicant started experiencing irregular back pain after training exercise. Leadership was very upset with the applicant for deciding to separate from the Army, going as far as to burn the applicant’s discharge documents in front of the unit. Also telling the applicant, the command could find a reason to give the applicant a dishonorable discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 20 January 2023, 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: 27 February 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) convened: NIF (2) EPSBD Findings: NIF (3) Date Applicant Reviewed and Concurred with the Findings, and Requested Discharge without Delay: NIF (4) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 November 2016 / 5 years, 33 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / / HS Graduate / 121 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-1 / None / 3 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None / The applicant’s AMHRR reflects award of the NDSM, however, the award is not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant’s DD Form 214, reflects the applicant had not completed the first full term of service. The applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-11, with a narrative reason of Failed Medical/Physical/Procurement Standards. The DD Form 214 was authenticated with the applicant’s electronic signature. Orders 054-1310, dated 23 February 2017, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 27 February 2017 from the Regular Army. The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 28 February 2017, reflects the applicant was flagged for Involuntary Separation or Discharge (Field Initiated) (BA), effective 14 February 2017; was ineligible for reenlistment due to Pending Separation (9V). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement. 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 3-9, states a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status. (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 waivable and nonwaivable 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 waivable. 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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the complete specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s electronic signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-11, by reason of Failed Medical/Physical/Procurement Standards, with a characterization of service of Uncharacterized. The applicant contends good service. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends leadership was very upset with the applicant for deciding to separate, going as far as to burn the applicant’s discharge documents and threaten a dishonorable discharge. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the discharge should be upgraded because the applicant never had back pain before entering the Army. 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 that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant has reported to the VA that applicant’s PTSD symptoms are the result of how applicant was treated during basic training. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s separation for idiopathic scoliosis was proper and equitable. There was insufficient evidence (first episode of back pain and minimal conservative treatment measures had been attempted) to support the condition failed medical retention standards IAW AR 40-501, chapter 3; therefore, medical discharge processing was not warranted. Additionally, there is no documentation of injury/trauma while in the military which would support service aggravation. A complaint of pain after normal training without injury or trauma provides insufficient objective evidence to support a service aggravated injury. Additionally, permanent service aggravation was not supported by post service treatment records. Of note, the VA has also diagnosed the applicant with PTSD related to the emotional trauma experienced while in basic training. Applicant is, as of this date, not service connected for this condition by the VA. Applicant has also not contended that the PTSD diagnosis is the justification for applicant’s request for discharge upgrade. If applicant were to make such a contention, it would not result in mitigation and a discharge upgrade given that applicant’s discharge was not based on misconduct and was properly and equitably rendered IAW AR 40-501, Chapter 2. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – Failed Medical/Physical/Procurement Standards – for the aforementioned reason(s). c. Response to Contention(s): (1) 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. (2) The applicant contends leadership was very upset with the applicant for deciding to separate, going as far as to burn the applicant’s discharge documents and threaten a dishonorable discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined there is insufficient evidence to support this claim that leadership was upset and burned applicant’s discharge documents and threatened a dishonorable discharge. Ultimately, the Board voted the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (3) The applicant contends the discharge should be upgraded because the applicant never had back pain before entering the Army. The Board determined that the applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization d. 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. e. 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/physical/procurement standards due to scoliosis diagnosis, 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, 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 AR20200003062 1