1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 16 March 2020 b. Date Received: 23 March 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable, a narrative reason change, a change to the separation code, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that service was honorable; the applicant believes had the applicant been given adequate assistance, applicant would have been able to overcome the running difficulties and pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). After the unit decided to separate, applicant thought it was automatic that applicant would be getting a general discharge. The first line supervisor told applicant that applicant was “a fat piece of shit” and that since applicant didn’t complete the first term of service, applicant would be getting a general discharge. Applicant didn’t think there was any other option. That is why applicant didn’t request to speak to a lawyer or trial defense services or write a statement on applicant’s behalf. Applicant really did think that a general discharge was automatic. It wasn’t until the current lawyer told applicant otherwise that applicant found out applicant was eligible for an honorable discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 12 April 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: Physical Standards / AR 635-200 / Chapter 13-2E / JFT / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 September 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 June 2019 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for having failed a record Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) on 15 January 2019 and a second test on 15 April 2019. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 30 July 2019 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 August 2019 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 January 2018 / 4 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 1 year, 8 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard’s indicating test dates of 15 January 2019, 22 February 2019, 15 April 2019, and 29 April 2019. Report of Mental Status Evaluation dated 6 May 2019 indicates the applicant was assessed for Chapter 13 administrative separation. Assessment included a medical records review, clinical interview, and review of BH screeners. The applicant screened negative for PTSD, depression, substance abuse, military sexual trauma, and TBI. The applicant denied any current psychiatric symptoms, and none were observed. No safety concerns. The applicant did not have a BH conditions that caused applicant to fail medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40- 501. The applicant was cleared for administrative separation as the command deemed appropriate. Several counseling statements relating to the applicant having failed the APFT. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): NIF (1) Applicant provided: (2) AMHRR Listed: 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; legal brief; union card; 2019 E-2 statement; extracts from AR 635-200 chapter 13 (Separation for Unsatisfactory Performance) and Appendix F (Mandatory Training and Other Requirements); separation packet; separation orders; and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 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 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) 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. (6) Paragraph 13-10 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. (See paras 3–5 and 3–7.) An honorable characterization of service generally is required when the Government initially introduces limited use evidence. 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 “JFT” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 paragraph 2e, physical 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-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. 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. RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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, a narrative reason change, a change to the separation code, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. Evidence in the AMHRR indicates separation actions was initiated against the applicant for having failed a record Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) on 15 January 2019 and a second test on 15 April 2019. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 13, paragraph 13-2e, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Physical Standards,” and the separation code is “JFT.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that service was honorable; the applicant believes had the applicant been given adequate assistance, applicant would have been able to overcome the running difficulties and pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). After the unit decided to separate, applicant thought it was automatic that applicant would be getting a general discharge. The first line supervisor told applicant that applicant was “a fat piece of shit” and that since applicant didn’t complete the first term of service, applicant would be getting a general discharge. Applicant didn’t think there was any other option. That is why applicant didn’t request to speak to a lawyer or trial defense services or write a statement on applicant’s behalf. Applicant really did think that a general discharge was automatic. It wasn’t until the current lawyer told applicant otherwise that applicant found out applicant was eligible for an honorable discharge. The applicant’s contentions were noted; however, as noted previously on 28 June 2019, the applicant was notified by the unit commander that separation action was being initiated for failure of a record APFT on 15 January 2019 and on 15 April 2019 and that he was recommending a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). On 28 June 2019, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the foregoing notice from the commander that informed applicant of the basis for the contemplated action to separate under AR 635-200, Chapter 13-2e and of the rights available. Applicant acknowledged having been advised of the right to consult with counsel prior to submitting an election of rights. On 30 July 2019, the applicant before completing the election of rights memorandum indicated that before completing this form, applicant had been afforded the opportunity to consult with appointed counsel; or military counsel of applicant’s own choice, if he or she was reasonably available; or civilian counsel at own expense. Applicant waived the right to consult with attorney. Applicant understood that applicant had less than 6 years of total active and reserve services at the time of separation under AR 635-200, Chapter 13-2e, and was aware applicant was not entitled to have the case heard by an administrative separation board unless applicant was being considered for a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Comments in the unit commander’s recommendation memorandum dated 12 August 2019 indicates the commander did not believe rehabilitative attempts would be practical and would not produce a quality Soldier for continued service in the United States Army Forces after being given 90 days to prepare for the APFT, after applicant failing the first one. As noted in the applicant’s application, the applicant reports that applicant was given ample time to pass the APFT; however, applicant reports a lack of any meaningful assistance. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that applicant was not provided with meaningful assistance in passing of the APFT. 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 Contention(s): (1) The applicant seeks relief contending that applicant’s service was 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 performance of duty by military personnel. By failing the APFT, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (2) Applicant contends that had applicant been given adequate assistance, applicant would have been able to overcome running difficulties and pass the APFT. The Board considered this contention, but determined that there is insufficient evidence in the AMHRR or applicant-provided evidence to support the contention. Therefore, the Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable. c. The Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s APFT failures fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, 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 AR20200007837 1