1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 23 July 2020 b. Date Received: 5 August 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 uncharacterized. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was experiencing extreme pain in the legs during basic training and was struggling to walk. The applicant was informed there may be a stress fracture. The applicant was issued crutches and scheduled for an x-ray. The applicant was harassed and verbally abused for using the crutches and was accused of faking the injury. The applicant could not walk and was in pain. The applicant was informed there was a break in the left leg. The applicant became depressed and relieved because now there was proof something was wrong. The applicant later found there were also multiple grade 4 stress fractures throughout the left leg. The applicant did not receive adequate medical prescriptions and care in a timely manner and believes the leadership was negligent. The applicant is on medication due to the verbal and physical abuse suffered in basic training and the days spent in a classroom with no stimuli has caused the applicant’s ADHD to flare up. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 11 August 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 (10 for PA) 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 / Chapter 5-11 / JFW / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 27 July 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) convened: 13 June 2014 (2) EPSBD Findings: After careful considerations of medical records, laboratory, findings, and medical examinations, the board found the applicant was medically unfit for enlistment according to current medical fitness standards and that in the opinion of the evaluating physicians the following medical condition(s) existed prior to service. The applicant was seen at the TMC on 3 April 2019 for Bilateral Lower leg pain. The applicant completed Bilateral Leg X-Ray Results: Evidence of stress fracture at the mild shaft of right tibia- left leg appear unremarkable. The applicant was treated with wheelchair for locomotion, crutches for transfers, bilateral Cam Boots, Motrin, Tylenol, medical quarters, and profile. The applicant was further evaluated with an MRI without contrast to evaluate stress fracture of lower left leg. Results on 5 May 2019: grade 4 stress fracture medical proximal left tibial plateau with fracture line 40 percent- grade 4 stress fracture mid diaphysis left mid shaft tibia with fracture 100 percent-Marked subcutaneous fluid medical lateral distal left lower leg from overuse. The applicant admits to being not very active prior to joining the Army. Since the applicant had such a significant stress injury very early in basic training, coupled with an inactive lifestyle a DEXA scan was ordered and completed on 10 April 2019 to assess the applicant’s overall bone health. The applicant was back to baseline with 0/10pain with walking and was discharged from Physical Therapy on 21 May 2019. The applicant was diagnosed with Osteopenia, and it was determined the condition would significantly interfere with successful completion of basic combat training and military duties. Based on the medical condition that existed prior to service, it was recommended the applicant be separated for failure to meet medical procurement standards according to AR 40-501, chapter 2, paragraph 2-32 (i). (3) Date Applicant Reviewed and concurred with the Findings and Requested to be discharged from the Army without delay: 9 July 2019 (4) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 July 2019 / Uncharacterized 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 March 2019 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 121 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 4 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: See DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings) as described in paragraph 3c(2). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provides a letter from an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN), dated 20 November 2019, which states, in part, the APRN felt that the applicant had some PTSD symptoms which were obtained while the applicant was in basic training. The applicant also provides pot-service medical records which reflects a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DA Form 293, personal statements-4, Letter from applicant’s spouse, Statements from applicant’s mother, emails, Letter addressed to Senator Graham, Associate Degree, Letter from Sentinel Health Partners, medical documents, DD Form 214, HS Transcript, DA Form 370 (Back), Letters of Support pertaining to applicant enlisting into the Army-2 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) 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. Unless the DCS, G-1, on a case-by-case basis, determines that characterization of service as honorable is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty. This characterization is authorized when the Soldier is separated by reason of selected changes in service obligation, convenience of the Government, and Secretarial plenary authority. A Soldier is in an entry-level status (ELS) if the Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action. (5) 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. The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under this provision of the regulation will normally be honorable. However, for Soldiers in entry-level status, it will be uncharacterized. AR 635-200 states that a Soldier is in an entry-level status (ELS) if the Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action. 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 proceedings of the EPSBD revealed the applicant had a medical condition which was disqualifying for enlistment and existed prior to entry on active duty. These findings were approved by competent medical authority and the applicant agreed with the findings and requested to be discharged from the Army. An uncharacterized discharge is neither positive nor negative and it is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier’s military service. It merely means that the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for the character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. The applicant was in an ELS status at the time of the initiation of the separation. An honorable discharge (HD) is rarely ever granted. An HD may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. The applicant contends the applicant endured verbal and physical abuse during basic training and the command was negligent and failed to provide adequate and timely medical care. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 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 diagnosis: The applicant is service connected for Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. Applicant asserts mental health 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 the applicant’s EPTS discharge was proper and equitable. Of note, all the applicant’s on-post and off-post records indicate denial of mistreatment. The applicant is service connected for Adjustment Disorder. Although the applicant submitted records, the only record with a diagnosis of PTSD is negated as the diagnosing provider clearly states the applicant did not meet criteria. In the records submitted, the only diagnosis supported is an Adjustment Disorder. While liberal consideration was applied, the service-connected condition does not change the discharge and medical records support the discharge as proper and equitable. However, the Board can consider the applicant assertion of abuse in-service. (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 outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – failed medical/physical/ procurement standards – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the applicant endured verbal and physical abuse during basic training. The Board considered this contention however there was no corroborating evidence in the applicant’s file. 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. In light of the current evidence of record, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate. (2) The applicant contends the command was negligent and failed to provide adequate and timely medical care. The Board considered this contention however there was no corroborating evidence in the applicant’s file. 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. In light of the current evidence of record, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The Board determined in accordance with AR 635-200 that, based on the applicant’s official record, applicant was separated while in an entry level status and an UNC is the proper characterization of service except when the DCS, G-1 determines that an HD is warranted based on unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty, which is not applicable in this case. Therefore, no change is warranted. 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. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because there were no mitigating factors that outweighed the basis of separation. Since the applicant was discharged for failing medical procurement standards, 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, 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 AR20200008214 1