1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 3 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, the separation was the result of an injury during APFT and based on the type of the discharge, the characterization should be honorable. An upgrade would allow the applicant to further the applicant’s education. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 4 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: Physical Standards / AR 635-200, Chapter 13-2E / JFT / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 January 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 December 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed two record APFTs within 90 days, without any physically limiting conditions. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 5 January 2019 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 January 2019 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 October 2016 / 3 years, 26 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 27D10, Paralegal Specialist / 2 years, 3 months, 15 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: CG Article 15, dated 11 May 2018, for stealing a pair of earrings, a value of about $11.99, the property of AAFES. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended); forfeiture of $428 pay (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 7 August 2018, reflects the applicant was referred for Chapter 14 behavioral health evaluation. 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. Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard reflects the applicant failed two record APFTs on: 4 October 2018 and 28 November 2018. 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 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 13-2c (previously paragraph 13-2e) states in pertinent part, 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 APFT failures must be within the timeline set forth in AR 350-1. The time a Soldier is on a temporary medical profile, which prohibits taking an APFT, does not count towards the timeline prescribed in AR 350-1. (6) Paragraph 13-4 (counseling and rehabilitation requirements) states before initiating separation action against a Soldier, commanders will ensure that the Soldier has received adequate counseling and rehabilitation. Paragraph 1-17 prescribes the counseling and rehabilitation requirements. (7) Paragraph 13-8 stipulates 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 350-1 (Army Training and Leader Development), Appendix F-5 (Physical Readiness Training Program), paragraph F-5k provides Soldiers must take a record APFT every 6 months for RA and AGR Soldiers, and annually for all other USAR and ARNG Soldiers. If a Soldier fails a record APFT, commanders may allow Soldiers to retake the test as soon as the Soldier and commander feel the Soldier is ready to test (not to exceed 90 days). A repetitive APFT failure occurs when a Soldier fails a record test, is provided adequate time and assistance to condition (not to exceed 90 days) and fails again. Soldiers without medical profiles that fail a retest or fail to take the APFT with no authorized waiver within the required time will be barred from re-enlistment or processed for separation from the service. f. 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 “JFT” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, Chapter 13-2e, Physical standards. g. 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 and the issues submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the separation was the result of an injury during APFT and based on the type of the discharge, the characterization should be honorable. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of any medical evidence reflecting an injury to support the contention. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow the applicant to continue education. Eligibility for veterans’ benefits 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? No. The Board’s Medical Advisor reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found no mitigating BH diagnoses on the applicant. The applicant provided no documents or testimony of a 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 Contentions: (1) The applicant contends the separation was the result of an injury during APFT. The Board considered this contention and determined there was insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and concurred with the conclusion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, regarding no service connected BH conditions that mitigate the misconduct of failing two record Army Physical Fitness Tests. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support the injury claim and there is no evidence in official records of an injury occurring. (2) The applicant contends based on the type of the discharge, the characterization should be honorable. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the failure of two Army Physical Fitness Tests, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (3) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow the applicant to fulfill the education. 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. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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 was insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and there were no mitigating circumstances for the Board’s consideration which might outweigh the misconduct of failing two record Army Physical Fitness Tests. 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 for failing two record Army Physical Fitness Tests, 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 / 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 AR20200003797 1