1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 22 August 2020 b. Date Received: 26 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 character of service should be honorable because the applicant was separated from the Army for medical reasons. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 13 October 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Condition, Not a Disability / AR 635- 200, Chapter 5-17 / JFV / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 23 April 2020 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 April 2020 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant sustained bilateral femoral neck bone stress injuries due to performing normal physical activities required for basic combat training (BCT) completion. The applicant is unable to successfully complete BCT at this time. (3) Recommended Characterization: Uncharacterized (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 10 April 2020, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 April 2020 / Uncharacterized 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 October 2019 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / High School Graduate / 89 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 6 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: The applicant provided medical records for the following dates: On 12 November 2019, the applicant received a hip magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The findings shows a moderate amount of bone marrow edema involving the bilateral femoral necks, compression side, right worse than left. Associated low signal fracture line was seen on the right, involving approximately 20 percent of the bone diameter, but not on the left. Bone marrow signal was otherwise unremarkable. No joint effusion. Mild edema involving the bilateral iliopsoas, quadratus femoris, gluteus medius, and gluteus minimus. Imaged musculature was otherwise normal in morphology and signal characteristics. No regional lymphadenopathy. Small amount of pelvic free fluid, likely physiologic. On 6 January 2020, the applicant received a hip MRI. The findings showed an interval improvement in moderate persistent bone marrow edema involving a right femoral neck stress fracture. No significant interval change in an associated low signal fracture line, involving approximately 20 percent of the bone diameter. Bone marrow signal was otherwise unremarkable. No joint effusion. The applicant provided an individual training report showing the applicant began BCT on 21 January 2020 and completed on 27 March 2020. The applicant provided a medical record, 22 January 2020, showing the applicant received a Pelvis (AP Only) Series Report. The findings were an interval development of ill-defined linear sclerosis involving the right femoral neck, corresponding to the previously demonstrated stress fracture on comparison MRI. No other fractures are identified. No dislocation. Joint spaces are relatively well preserved. Sacroiliac joints and imaged lower lumbar spine were unremarkable. DA Form 3081 (Periodic Medical Examination), shows the applicant underwent a medical examination in conjunction with bilateral femoral neck stress injuries on 2 April 2020 at the Troop Medical Clinic. The applicant provided a medical record, 2 April 2020, showing the applicant received a hip MRI. The findings showed osseous structures demonstrated grade three bone stress injuries of the bilateral femoral necks, left greater than right. Grade two bone stress injuries of the left superior pubic ramus, bilateral pubic bodies and bilateral proximal femoral diaphysis. The muscles demonstrate low-grade strain of the bilateral gluteus medius, gluteus minimus, iliopsoas and rectus femoris muscles. Developmental Counseling Form, 3 April 2020, shows the applicant was counseled by the company commander because the applicant’s health care provider recommended the application for a chapter under AR 635-200, paragraph 5-17 because the applicant was injured at BCT. The applicant was deemed unfit for duty and the company commander concurred with the platoon leader and healthcare provider that the applicant be discharged from the Army. On 10 April 2020, the company commander initiated action to separate the applicant under AR 635-200, paragraph 5-17, because the applicant sustained bilateral femoral neck bone stress injuries and was unable to successfully complete BCT. The applicant provided VA disability rating decision, 18 February 2023, showing the applicant was rated a combined service-connection of 20 percent disability for femoral neck stress fracture, left and right hip strain, with limitation of adduction. 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 149; DD Form 214; individual training report; medical records. 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 PTSD, 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 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 3-9 states a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status. (4) Chapter 5 provides for the basic separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government. (5) Paragraph 5-1, states a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, general (under honorable conditions), or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status. A general (under honorable conditions) discharge is normally inappropriate for individuals separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-14 (previously paragraph 5-17) unless properly notified of the specific factors in the service that warrant such characterization. (6) Paragraph 5-14 (previously paragraph 5-17) specifically provides that a Soldier may be separated for other physical or mental conditions not amounting to a disability, which interferes with assignment to or performance of duty and requires that the diagnosis be so severe that the Soldier’s ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired. (7) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army’s best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary’s approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. (8) Glossary defines entry-level status for RA Soldiers is the first 180 days of continuous AD or the first 180 days of continuous active duty following a break of more than 92 days of active military service. 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 “JFV” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-14 (previously paragraph 5-17), Condition, Not a Disability. 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: (1) RE-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. (2) 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 AMHRR, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the applicant served 6 months, 16 days (199 days). On 20 April 2020, the applicant was recommended for separation from the Army because the applicant sustained bilateral femoral neck bone stress injuries due to performing normal physical activities required for BCT completion. The applicant did not obtain a military occupational specialty. On 23 April 2020, the applicant was discharged under AR 635-200, paragraph 5-17, condition, not a disability with an uncharacterized characterization of service. 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. An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service. It merely means the Soldier has not served on active duty long enough for their character of service to be rated. The applicant’s AMHRR includes evidence the applicant, while in training status, was evaluated by competent medical authority and determined the applicant had bilateral femoral neck bone stress injuries. It was determined these injuries would prevent the applicant from completing training. The applicant contends, in effect, the character of service should be honorable because the applicant was separated from the Army for medical reasons. The applicant’s AMHRR shows the company commander’s notification memorandum, 10 April 2020, showing the applicant sustained bilateral femoral neck bone stress injuries due to performing normal physical activities required for BCT completion. According to the company commander the applicant was unable to successfully complete BCT. Medical evidence provided by the applicant also shows the applicant sustained bilateral femoral neck bone stress injuries while in BCT. The applicant’s VA disability rating decision, 18 February 2023, shows the applicant was rated a combined service-connection of 20 percent disability for femoral neck stress fracture, left and right hip strain, with limitation of adduction. 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, 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 had no mitigating BH conditions or experiences documented in her medical records. (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. Prior Decisions Cited: None c. Response to Contention: The applicant contends, in effect, the character of service should be honorable because the applicant was separated from the Army for medical reasons. The Board considered this contention and 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. d. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. 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. e. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board determined that the reason for the applicant's separation and the character of service the applicant received upon separation were proper and equitable. The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical review, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board found insufficient evidence of in- service mitigating factors and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official that the applicant does not have a BH condition that mitigates the applicant's injuries that prevented basic combat training (BCT) completion. 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, and 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 AR20200009187 1