1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 May 2020 b. Date Received: 5 June 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, a separation code change, a reentry code change, and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, while putting some serious effort into changing the life; whereas, before the applicant did nothing because of being embarrassed to ask for help. At the time, the applicant was in a rough situation, forced to live a double life and took on the stresses of deployment. The applicant had a hard time coping with PTSD, DADT, and other conditions. During the discharge, the applicant was unexpectantly given two options and persuaded by the chain of command by exiting the military through PT failures would be the "'lighter'" discharge, while anticipating the DADT would not allow the applicant to reenlist, which the applicant wanted to do after seeking assistance for the tour in Iraq PTSD-related anxiety attacks. The applicant was not informed the discharge would prevent using the military benefits the applicant enlisted for. The applicant felt victimized as if having bought a lemon from a used car lot. The applicant had anticipated going to college for a long time. Although there are options to obtain financial aid and student loans, the options would set the applicant further behind. The applicant has been part of the LGBT community since birth. The DADT was repealed by President Obama but later put in place by Congress. Attached is an argument in support of the claim from attorney, and statements from ex-fiancés, B. C. and R. B. A letter from R. B. and a medical health record with appropriate dates explains mental health concerns, including the disclosure of the sexuality during time of service. The applicant deserves an honorable character of service. The applicant did nothing unsatisfactory. The applicant was a Soldier, who intended to serve the country honorably, even after the symptoms of PTSD and anxiety were addressed and treated. The applicant desired to reenlist after the discharge. With the DADT being repealed, the applicant has a better support system to get through the specific deployment challenges as things could be much easier. An upgrade would provide the opportunity to return to school which would give the applicant a new sense of pride, and knowing who the applicant is, it does not define as unsatisfactory. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 21 April 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and combat service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. 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: 11 March 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 February 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed the APFT on 26 October, and 16 and 28 December 2010. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 24 February 2011, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 March 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 November 2008 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / High School Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 13D10, Field Artillery Automation / 2 years, 4 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (25 March 2010 - 30 June 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Three Developmental Counseling Forms for APFT failures, failing to meet the minimum standard of the two-mile run for the age group, and failing a third record APFT. Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard reflects the applicant failed record APFTs on 7 October, 10 November, and 10 December 2010. Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation (BHE), dated 26 October 2010, reflects the applicant was mentally responsible with a clear-thinking process, had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings, and met the medical retention requirements of AR 40-501, Chapter 3. The Clinical Psychologist commented there was no Axis I or II diagnosis, and the applicant does not have PTSD and does not suffer from symptoms of a TBI. The applicant was cleared for administrative actions. The BHE was considered by the separation authority. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Health Record, dated 20 July 2010, reflects the applicant being seen for an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood, and the clinical assessment of the symptoms, and the impact of the homosexual disclosure while in theater. Psychiatrist, Consult Requests, dated 6 April 2016, reflects a positive Iraq PTSD Screen and Progress Notes, dated 29 April 2016, reflects a diagnosis of PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: MSE/BHE as described in previous paragraph 4h. Report of Medical History, dated 15 October 2010, the applicant noted swollen or painful joints occurring down range was treated with pain medications, and frequent trouble sleeping, and both were deployment related and the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: the applicant was receiving counseling and treatment with medications, and the symptoms of low back pain in July 2010 were resolved according to the applicant. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Second); DD Form 214; self-authored statement; pages 9 and 10 of Argument in Support of Veteran's Claims; third-party statement; and 30 July 2010 Health Record. DD Form 293 (First); DD Form 214; List of Symptoms; three third-party statements; two Statements in Support of Claim for VA; and Psychiatrist Consult Requests with Progress Notes medical record. 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 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 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, a separation code change, a reentry code change, and a narrative reason change. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions). The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unsatisfactory Performance," and the separation code is "JHJ." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates 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 contends the SPD code should be changed. The SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. The SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 13, is "JHJ." Note, the existing policy in 2011 for separation resulting from two consecutive failures of Army Physical Fitness, the narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge was "Physical standards," and the separation code was "JFT." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents governing the preparation of the DD Form 214, 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 was authorized. There was no provision for any other reason to be entered under the regulation in effect during the period of separation. The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change with a desire to rejoin the Military Service. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of "3." There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of "3" indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army's needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends being treated for the symptoms of PTSD and anxiety after having been in a rough situation when forced to live a double life and taking on the stresses of deployment, the applicant had a hard time coping with PTSD, DADT, and other conditions. The applicant provided medical documents indicating a diagnoses of PTSD and adjustment disorder with anxiety, and prescribed medications. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a behavioral health evaluation (BHE) on 26 October 2010, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The applicant contends not being informed the discharge would prevent using the military benefits the applicant enlisted for, and an upgrade would provide the opportunity to return to school. 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. The AMHRR contains a pre-separation counseling checklist which reflects the applicant accepted receiving counseling on education and training benefits, and veterans' benefits briefing. The applicant contends deserving an honorable discharge because of doing nothing unsatisfactory but having the intentions to serve the country honorably as a Soldier. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends, unexpectantly being given two options and being persuaded by the chain of command to exit the military through PT failures which would be the "'lighter'" discharge, while anticipating the DADT would not allow the applicant to reenlist, which the applicant wanted to do after seeking help for the tour in Iraq PTSD-related anxiety attacks. Although inapplicable to the applicant's current discharge under Chapter 13, AR 635-200, current laws and regulations now allow Soldiers who are homosexual to serve openly. Former Soldiers discharged under Chapter 15, AR 635-200 and under the old policy may now request a change to the reason for their separation invoking the current standard. The Board considers any aggravating factors and, in their absence, will change the narrative reason for the discharge to Secretarial Authority. The applicant's record does not indicate any aggravating factors as defined in AR 635-200, but for the consecutive APFT failures. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 9. 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: Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and depressed mood; Chronic Adjustment DO (CAD-50% service- connected). Additionally, the applicant asserts PTSD, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the diagnosis of Adjustment DO was made in service. VA service connection for CAD establishes it occurred during military service. Applicant asserts PTSD in- service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there are no mitigating BH conditions. While the applicant has been service connected for CAD by the VA, this condition would not impact one's ability to take and pass an APFT given that this condition does not affect physiological function or exercise tolerance. The applicant's assertion of PTSD was considered but due to lack of corroborating diagnosis by a qualified medical professional the assertion alone did not mitigate the PT failures. (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 conditions outweighed failing three APFTs. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention voted to maintain the current narrative reason, as the narrative reason was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant received the appropriate SPD code for the discharge specified by AR 635-200, paragraph 13-2e / JHJ. Therefore, that no relief is warranted at this time. (3) The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change with a desire to rejoin the Military Service. The Board considered this contention and voted to maintain the RE-code to a RE-3, which is a waivable code. An RE Code of "3" indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army's needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes, if appropriate. (4) The applicant contends being treated for the symptoms of PTSD and anxiety after having been in a rough situation when forced to live a double life and taking on the stresses of deployment, the applicant had a hard time coping with PTSD, DADT, and other conditions. The Board considered this contention but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with family issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The applicant's DADT concern did not match the misconduct, so with the evidence provided and available did not warrant an upgrade. (5) The applicant contends not being informed the discharge would prevent using the military benefits the applicant enlisted for, and an upgrade would provide the opportunity to return to school. The Board considered this contention non-persuasive during its deliberations as the applicant did not provide evidence to support the contention. There is no evidence available or presented by the applicant of the command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner other than the applicant's statement. (6) The applicant contends deserving an honorable discharge because of doing nothing unsatisfactory but having the intentions to serve the country honorably as a Soldier. The Board considered this contention during proceedings and determined that the characterization was too harsh for the minor misconduct of PT failures and relief was warranted. (7) The applicant contends, unexpectantly being given two options and being persuaded by the chain of command to exit the military through PT failures which would be the "'lighter'" discharge, while anticipating the DADT would not allow the applicant to reenlist, which the applicant wanted to do after seeking help for the tour in Iraq PTSD-related anxiety attacks. The Board considered this contention non-persuasive during its deliberations as the applicant did not provide evidence to support the contention. There is no evidence available or presented by the applicant of the command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner other than the applicant's statement. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and combat service. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable based on the characterization being too harsh for the misconduct, and the applicant's length and combat service taken into consideration. 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, as the narrative reason was 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 AR20200008188 1