1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 20 April 2020 b. Date Received: 24 April 2020 c. Counsel: 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, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, being separated by command decision with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service after the applicant failed two consecutive Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFTs). The applicant suffered from pes planus and spinal segment ankylosis, which were treated throughout the applicant's time of service. The applicant was diagnosed with pes planus by an Army physician and the applicant suffered from spinal segment ankylosis, which was misdiagnosed as general pain while in service. The final segment ankylosis was identified by a computerized tomography (CT) scan before the separation date, yet the command ignored the applicant's potentially disqualifying medical conditions and separated the applicant for unsatisfactory performance. Given the severe nature of the applicant's medical limitations, it is unjust to allow the failure of consecutive APFTs to be used as the sole basis for a general (under honorable conditions) discharge because the applicant suffered from two distinct potentially disqualifying medical conditions treated while in service. The command's characterization of the applicant's discharge represents a clear discretionary error despite the injuries likely leading to the applicant's discharge. The applicant received the same characterization as those who test positive for drugs or drink and drive. The applicant states, although the troop commander recommended an honorable discharge, the applicant was informed, the day of separation, the applicant's DD Form 214 would reflect general (under honorable conditions). The applicant was not able to rebut the discharge before separation because of the short notice. The discharge makes it difficult to obtain employment and the applicant desires to use GI benefits. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 August 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service and the medical circumstances surrounding the discharge, and as a result it is inequitable. 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, Paragraph 13-2E / JFT / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 April 2020 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 June 2018 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 1 year, 9 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant provided medical records reflecting: On 2 August 2018, the applicant was treated at the 20th Medical Group, Troop Medical Clinic Ambulatory, for feet, left elbow, and left knee pain and the examining physician assistant found the applicant had right and left feet pes planus. The applicant was directed to take Ibuprofen and was referred to physical therapy for inserts. On 23 April 2019, the applicant was treated at Carl R. Darnell Medical Center Fort Hood for low back pain. The applicant was diagnosed with low back pain and provided an exercise plan and medications. The applicant was released without limitations. On 17 September 2019, the applicant was treated by Darnel Medical Center for low back pain. The medical examining physician noted a record review indicated summer 2018, the applicant was a holdover in initial entry training because the applicant could not pass the APFT and weakness. The applicant has had foot and shoulder pain since entering the Army. On 23 January 2020, the applicant was treated for lower back pain at the Darnel Medical Center for lower back pain, which has been present for 10 months. The applicant had trial physical therapy which did not help the applicant's back pain. The applicant bought a back brace and had been wearing it but did not have a profile to wear it. The doctor instructed the applicant on how to properly perform the home exercise. The applicant was released without limitations. The applicant was being chaptered out of the Army. On 2 March 2020, the applicant underwent a CT scan and the test revealed straightening of the lumbar spine with mild scoliosis of the thoracic spine, likely because of paraspinal muscle spasm; lumbosacral transitional vertebra; and mild hepatosplenomegaly. Orders 086-0118, dated 26 March 2020, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 7 April 2020 from the Regular Army. The applicant's DD Form 214 reflects the applicant had not completed the first full term of service. The applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, paragraph 13-2e, with a narrative reason of Physical Standards. The DD Form 214 was authenticated with the applicant's electronic signature. The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 10 April 2019, reflects the applicant was flagged for Involuntary Separation or Discharge (Field Initiated) (BA), effective 29 January 2020; was ineligible for reenlistment because of Pending Separation (9V). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; Legal Brief with all listed exhibits; Enlisted Record Brief; medical records; and separation approval memorandum. 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's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR) is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant's AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's electronic signature. The applicant's DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 13, Separation for Unsatisfactory Performance, paragraph 13-2e, by reason of physical standards, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends pes planus and spinal segment ankylosis contributed to the applicant failing two APFTs and ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant provided medical documents reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with pes planus and straightening of the lumbar spine with mild scoliosis of the thoracic spine, likely because of paraspinal muscle spasm; lumbosacral transitional vertebra; and mild hepatosplenomegaly. The applicant was seen on multiple occasions by medical personnel for foot and lower back pain. The AMHRR is void of a separation medical examination. The applicant contends other Soldiers with serious offenses received the same discharge. The DODI 1332.28 provides each case must be decided on its individual merits, and a case-by-case basis, considering the unique facts and circumstances of the case. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant, through a third party statement, contends harassment by members of the unit. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant contends the discharge should have been process through the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) because pes planus and spinal segment ankylosis were disqualifying medical conditions. The applicant did not provide any evidence showing the applicant was recommended for an MEB. The AMHRR is void of any evidence of an MEB. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill 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 applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The third party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. It recognizes the applicant's good military service. 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 contends pes planus and spinal segment ankylosis contributed to the applicant failing two APFTs and ultimately led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that it was valid, the applicant's injuries do mitigate the APFT failures. Therefore, a characterization of service upgrade is warranted. (2) The applicant contends other Soldiers with serious offenses received the same discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings but ultimately did not address it due to an upgrade being granted on the basis of the applicant's injuries mitigating the APFT failures. (3) The applicant, through a third-party statement, contends harassment by members of the unit. The Board considered this contention during proceedings but ultimately did not address it due to an upgrade being granted on the basis of the applicant's injuries mitigating the APFT failures (4) The applicant contends the discharge should have been processed through the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) because pes planus and spinal segment ankylosis were disqualifying medical conditions. The Board determined that the applicant's requested processing through IDES does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. (6) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service and the medical circumstances surrounding the discharge, and as a result it is inequitable. 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. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's pes planus and spinal segment ankylosis mitigated the applicant's APFT failures. 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 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 AR20200008929 1