1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 10 February 2020 b. Date Received: 13 February 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, joining the Nebraska Army National Guard (NEARNG) on the 30th birthday. The applicant shipped to basic training (BT) on 10 October 2012. In December 2012, ten days before BT graduation, the applicant could not get the boot on and was sent to sick call. The applicant was told the applicant had a broken left foot in two places. The applicant and did not feel the pain at first because of a very high pain tolerance. The unit granted the applicant 30 days convalescence leave and the applicant went home in a boot and with crutches. The applicant returned to BT on 3 January 2013 to the Physical Training and Rehabilitation Program (PTRP) unit, which discovered the applicant had three breaks instead of two. The third break did not heal and the doctors indicated the applicant should be placed in a cast and not be placed on convalesce leave. The applicant spent two months in the PTRP unit working hard to return to 100 percent. When the applicant left to go on convalescence leave, the applicant’s dress blues were at the cleaners and the previous unit could not find the uniform. The unit was attempting to charge the applicant $300 for a new set, but the applicant was supporting a family back home and could not afford a new uniform. At the last minute, the dress blues were found in a unit officer’s locker. The PTRP doctors were unable to tell the applicant the status of the injury, which caused the applicant much stress. The applicant spoke with a Chaplain, to obtain some help working through the frustration of not being able to return to BT and move on to advanced individual training (AIT), and eventually return home to the family. The Chaplain did not offer any helpful advice and pushed the applicant off to a counselor. It was at the one counseling appointment the doctor, in one hour, decided the applicant had a personality disorder. The applicant was hurt and confused because the applicant was seeking advice regarding being hurt and homesick, and the frustration of being left behind as the unit graduated and moved on to AIT. The applicant received an uncharacterized separation for “failed medical/physical/procurement standards” The applicant returned home on 7 March 2013 and the NEARNG had the applicant contact the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), because of the applicant’s broken foot. In September 2013, the applicant was informed the applicant was 10 percent service-connected disability. The applicant is in specially made orthopedics for life because the missed third break, which did not heal properly and changed the applicant’s gait. The applicant enlisted in the ARNG to serve the country. The applicant passed every test and felt strong with the unit. When the applicant broke the foot, no one helped and just kept sending the applicant home or pushed the applicant to someone else. The applicant was labeled with an uncharacterized discharge and sent home. The country the applicant loved and would die for left the applicant behind. The applicant loves the country and is a veteran of the United States. The applicant was not given the choice to stay and continue to fight and heal to return BT and continue on to AIT. The choice was made for the applicant after one hour with a doctor who knew nothing about the applicant. The applicant requests a discharge upgrade. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 3 February 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: Failed Medical/Physical/Procurement Standards / AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-11 / JFW / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 7 March 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) convened: 15 February 2013 / The date on the Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceeding’s form, reflects the year 2012, which appears to be in error. (2) EPSBD Findings: The findings of the evaluating physicians indicate the applicant was medically unfit for appointment or enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians the condition existed prior to service. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder, with mixed anxiety and depressed Mood; and Dependent Personality Disorder. (3) Date Applicant Reviewed and Concurred with the Findings, and Requested Discharge without Delay: 21 February 2013 (4) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 March 2013 / Uncharacterized 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 October 2012 / 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 30 / Bachelor’s Degree / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / None / 9 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 7 June 2012 – 9 October 2012 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Orders 063-1325, dated 4 March 2013, reflect the applicant was to be released from active duty for training, discharged from the Reserve of the Army, and returned to the Army National Guard unit. The applicant provided four VA letters, dated 9 December 2019, reflecting the applicant was rated 10 percent service-connected disability and the applicant’s service from 10 October 2012 and 7 March 2013 was considered under honorable conditions. The letters did not indicate the medical condition(s) involved in the rating determination. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: EPSBD findings as described in previous paragraph 3c. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214, two DD Forms 293; and four VA letters. 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) 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. (5) Chapter 5, provides for the basic separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government. (6) Paragraph 5-1, states that 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. (7) Paragraph 5-10 (previously 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. (8) Glossary prescribes entry-level status for ARNGUS and USAR Soldiers, entry-level status begins upon enlistment in the ARNG or USAR. For Soldiers ordered to IADT for one continuous period, it terminates 180 days after beginning training. For Soldiers ordered to IADT for the split or alternate training option, it terminates 90 days after beginning Phase II advanced individual training (AIT). (Soldiers completing Phase I BT or basic combat training remain in entry-level status until 90 days after beginning Phase II.) Delete the gray area for Active Duty. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes), in effect at the time, provided 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 “JFW” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-11, Failed Medical/ Physical/ Procurement 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-1 Applies to a 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. A general (under honorable conditions) discharge is normally inappropriate for individuals separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-11 unless properly notified of the specific factors in the service that warrant such characterization. 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 proposed action for administrative separation from the Army. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions, at the time, of Chapter 5-11, AR 635-200, with an uncharacterized discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Failed Medical/Physical/Procurement Standards,” and the separation code is “JFW.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and 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 is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends an injury, which contributed to the applicant’s stress; not receiving assistance with the issues; and an improper diagnoses of mental health conditions led to the discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation which supports diagnoses of in- service Adjustment Disorder, with mixed anxiety and depressed Mood, and Dependent Personality Disorder. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends the VA diagnosed the applicant 10 percent service-connected disability for the broken foot. The applicant provided VA documents indicating a service-connected disability, but the documents did not disclose the medical condition for conditions which were rated at 10 percent. The applicant contends the VA has determined the applicant’s service was under honorable conditions. The applicant provided a VA letter, dated 9 December 2019, which reflects the VA determined the period of service from 10 October 2012 and 7 March 2013 as under honorable conditions. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than used by the Army when determining a member’s discharge. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Dependent Personality Disorder and Adjustment Disorder. Post- service, the applicant has diagnoses of Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and Cyclothymia; these have not been service connected. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Dependent Personality Disorder and Adjustment Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the evaluation and recommendation for discharge related to the Personality Disorder diagnosis is properly documented with substantiation and two separate providers concurring. The post-service diagnoses have not been service connected nor have providers indicated they existed in service. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB determined that the condition or experience did not outweigh the basis of separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The SPD codes identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty, and administratively linked to the reason 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. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable, and the SPD code and narrative reason are consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. (2) The applicant contends an injury, which contributed to the applicant’s stress; not receiving assistance with the issues; and an improper diagnoses of mental health conditions led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with stress and other life concerns, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records and found that the applicant held in-service diagnoses of Dependent Personality Disorder and Adjustment Disorder. Post-service, the applicant has diagnoses of Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and Cyclothymia; these have not been service connected. The findings of the evaluating physicians indicate the applicant was medically unfit for appointment or enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians the condition existed prior to service. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered this contention and determined that UNC is the proper characterization of service as the applicant’s service was not long enough to be properly assessed. The uncharacterized description of service accurately reflects the applicant’s overall record of service. 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 means the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for a character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. (4) The applicant contends the VA diagnosed the applicant 10 percent service- connected disability for the broken foot and the applicant’s service was under honorable conditions. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member’s discharge characterization. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the discharge was proper and equitable. c. The Board determined the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because there were no mitigating factors for the Board to consider. The applicant was discharged for failing medical procurement standards while in Entry Level Status IAW with AR 635-200 chapter 3-9 a separation will be described with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status. (1) . The findings of the evaluating physicians indicate the applicant was medically unfit for appointment or enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians the condition existed prior to service, 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, 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 AR20200010185 1