1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 6 May 2020 b. Date Received: 22 May 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 applicant was treated poorly and unfairly with the way things were handled when the unit was out processing the applicant from the Army. The applicant failed the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) which is the sole reason why the applicant was being discharged from the Army. The applicant did not understand why the unit choose a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions) because when the applicant spoke with the commander they agreed on an honorable discharge. The applicant was not mentally stable and was always at Behavioral Health. The unit took advantage of this and failed to properly out-process the applicant and two other Soldiers. They were not ready to enter back into the civilian world and the applicant had no idea what to do to fight what was happening. The other two Soldiers were honorably discharged for the same reason as the applicant; however, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The whole situation was not right, the first sergeant was retiring and wanted their paperwork moved fast. The applicant was unaware leadership forged signatures for some of the applicant's counseling forms or reused old counselings and changed the date. It was unfair and the applicant did not know what to do or who to contact. The applicant was not sure if the sergeant received all of the applicant's signatures and finished the applicant's discharge packet. Currently, the applicant is receiving disability for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 12 May 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service outweighing the basis for separation - APFT Failure. 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: Physical Standards / AR 635-200, Chapter 13-2E / JFT / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 1 June 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 March 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 15 August 2017 and 13 November 2017 the applicant failed the record APFT. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 April 2018 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 April 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 April 2016 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / High School Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E3 / 12B10, Combat Engineer / 2 years, 1 month, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait (1 July 2016 - 1 March 2017) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 16 January 2018, for failing to go at the prescribed time to the appointed place of duty, 0630 accountability formation on or about 11 October 2017 and 12 October 2017; and without authority, absent from unit on or about 12 October 2017, and remained absent until on or about 17 October 2017. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $819.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. APFT Scorecards reflects the applicant failed record APFTs on 15 August 2017 and 13 November 2017. Developmental Counseling Forms, dated 17 August 2017 and 15 November 2017, reflects the applicant was counseled for failing the APFT on 15 August 2017 and 13 November 2017. Sworn Statement by Sergeant First Class (SFC), dated 11 October 2017, states SFC assisted the applicant with purchasing a plane ticket to Hawaii due to the death of the applicant's sister. The applicant told SFC that it would be cheaper to purchase one-way tickets. To prevent hardship on the applicant SFC agreed. While in Hawaii the applicant requested a 12 day leave extension through SFC, who received partial approval from the first sergeant. SFC informed the applicant to report back to the unit on 10 October 2017, the day after the funeral. As of 11 October 2017, the applicant did not return to the unit. Serious Incident Report, dated 11 October 2017, states the applicant was granted 14 days leave to attend sister's funeral. The applicant requested a leave extension due to the funeral was rescheduled at a later date (9 October 2017). The applicant was granted additional leave through 10 October 2017. The applicant never booked the return flight, stating lack of money. As of as of 0001 hours on 12 October 2017 the applicant was considered absent without leave (AWOL). DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)) reflects the applicant was flagged for adverse action effective 12 October 2017. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 10 November 2017, reflects the applicant was counseled for failing to report to accountability formation on 11 October 2017 and being AWOL on 12 October 2017. The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 4 June 2018, reflects the applicant was flagged for APFT failure (JA), effective 15 August 2017 and for involuntary separation/field initiated (BA) effective 16 March 2018; was ineligible for reenlistment due to pending separation (9V). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for 1 day, 12 October 2017. This period is not annotated on the DD Form 214 block 29. j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 9 February 2018, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for substance use disorders, PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and sexual trauma history with negative results. The applicant was diagnosed with adjustment, ongoing anxiety and depression symptoms related to life stress. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; 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 13-2c (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. (6) 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 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. 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 Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant was treated poorly and unfairly with the way things were handled when the unit was out processing the applicant from the Army. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends, in effect, after speaking with the commander they agreed on an honorable discharge. AR 635-200, 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. The applicant contends, in effect, the unit took advantage of the applicant being mentally unstable. The applicant is currently receiving disability for PTSD; however, the applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 9 February 2018, which indicates the applicant could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant had been screened for PTSD with negative results. The MSE reflects the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment, ongoing anxiety and depression symptoms related to life stress. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling and the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant contends, in effect, two other Soldiers were honorably discharged for the same reason the applicant was being discharged; however, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Applicable regulations state each case must be decided on an individual basis, considering the unique facts and circumstances of the case. The applicant contends, in effect, the first sergeant sped up the out-processing process, leadership forged signatures for some of the applicant's counseling forms, or reused old counselings and changed the date, and the applicant was not sure if the sergeant received all of the applicant's signatures and finished the applicant's discharge packet. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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: The applicant held an in- service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with a long history of depression and suicidal ideation secondary to childhood abuse. Post-service, the applicant is service connected for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held an in-service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with a long history of depression and suicidal ideation secondary to childhood abuse. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that outside of failing APFT not being a progression or sequela of the diagnoses, documentation does not link failing APFT with any behavioral health symptoms, conditions, or treatment. Moreover, although the applicant asserts treatment for PTSD, applicant is not service connected or diagnosed with PTSD within the available military, VA, and civilian records and did not provide any documentation in support of the contention. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's Adjustment Disorder, MDD, and suicidal ideation outweighed the basis for applicant's separation - APFT Failure - for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, the unit took advantage of the applicant being mentally unstable. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighing the basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, the first sergeant sped up the out-processing process, leadership forged signatures for some of the applicant's counseling forms, or reused old counseling, and changed the date, and the applicant was not sure if the sergeant received all of the applicant's signatures and finished the applicant's discharge packet. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighing the basis for separation. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighing the basis for separation - APFT Failure. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief. 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighing the basis for separation - APFT Failure. 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 and determined 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: 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 AR20200009470 1