1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, there is no reason why an Article 15 would apply if the discharge process occurred prior to the minor offense. There is no reason why the educational benefits should be denied because of an event which occurred after the discharge proceedings were already underway. The NCOs, knowing how to agitate the applicant, chose to harass the applicant behind closed doors. The applicant believes it was hazing because the NCOs knew they would do anything to hurt the applicant. When the applicant eventually spoke up, the applicant received an Article 15 punishment. The applicant is perplexed as to why the discharge was general, under honorable conditions, while the reason for separation was physical standards. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 5 October 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's Major Depressive Disorder outweighing the applicant's APFT failure and a portion of the applicant's misconduct. 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, Chapter 13-2E / JFT / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 31 August 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 July 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed two Army Physical Fitness Tests on 7 September 2012 and 3 April 2013. The applicant also, on divers occasions between 3 and 25 April 2013, disrespected an NCO, failed to obey a lawful order three times, was derelict in the performance of duties, and provided a false official statement. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 12 July 2013, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 16 July 2013, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Performance. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 February 2012 / 4 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 1 year, 6 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Ten Developmental Counseling Forms for various acts of misconduct. Two Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecards reflect the applicant failed two record APFTs on 7 September 2012 and 3 April 2013. CG Article 15, 12 June 2013, for disobeying an NCO, SGT V. S., on 8 April 2013; being disrespectful in deportment towards an NCO, SSG W. M., on 8 April 2013; failing to obey an order issued by the Garrison Commander, by refusing to sign in a nonmilitary visitor on 25 April 2013; failing to obey an order to submit a draft essay on 23 April 2013; being derelict in the performance of duties on 10 April 2013; and making a false official statement with intent to deceive on 25 April 2013. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended) and extra duty for 14 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical History, 16 April 2013, the applicant noted behavioral health issues and the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: The applicant was being treated by the Clinic Mental Health Services and prescribed medications. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, 17 May 2013, reflects the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. The AXIS I diagnosis was "300.4 Dysthymic Disorder." 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 293; VA letter; and DD Form 214. 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 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. 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. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the Article 15 for minor offense should not apply if the discharge process occurred prior to the offense and questions the general, under honorable condition discharge when the reason for the separation was for physical standards. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant claims the offense leading to the discharge was minor. The AMHRR indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends the educational benefits should not be denied because an incident occurred after the separation proceedings was initiated. Eligibility for veterans' 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 harassment by noncommissioned officers to agitate the applicant behind closed doors, and speaking up led to an Article 15 punishment. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service Dysthymic Disorder and treatment with medications. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 17 May 2013, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The MSE reflected an Axis I diagnosis of Dysthymic Disorder. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. 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, the applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Major Depressive Disorder, and Dysthymic Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Major Depressive Disorder, and Dysthymic Disorder. The VA has also service-connected applicant's Major Depressive Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Major Depressive Disorder, and Dysthymic Disorder. The VA has also service-connected applicant's Major Depressive Disorder. The applicant's BH conditions provide partial mitigation for the basis of separation. Given the nexus between Major Depressive Disorder, decreased motivation, lack of energy, decreased interest in activities, and avoidance, applicant's MDD more likely than not contributed to applicant's ability to train and pass the APFT. So, the APFT failures are mitigated. In addition to difficulty with motivation, decreased concentration has a nexus with MDD, so the applicant's MDD mitigates failing to submit a draft essay and failing to notify a SGT about items the applicant signed for and put on a desk. The remaining misconduct of failing to sign in a non- military visitor, disrespecting an NCO, and providing a false official statement are not mitigated due to no natural sequela with any of the applicant's BH conditions to include an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Major Depressive Disorder, and Dysthymic Disorder. None of these conditions interfere with the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's Major Depressive Disorder outweighed the offenses (APFT failures, failing to submit a draft essay, and failing to properly notify an NCO). The Board found that the remaining medically unmitigated misconduct (and associated circumstances) of failing to sign in a non- military visitor, disrespecting an NCO, and providing a false official statement did not rise to a level to negate meritorious service. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the Article 15 for a minor offense should not apply if the discharge process occurred prior to the offense and questions the general, under honorable condition discharge when the reason for the separation was for physical standards. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to a characterization upgrade being granted based on medical mitigation for most of the applicant's misconduct. (2) The applicant contends the Article 15 for minor offense should not apply if the discharge process occurred prior to the offense and questions the general, under honorable condition discharge when the reason for the separation was for physical standards. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to a characterization upgrade being granted based on medical mitigation for most of the applicant's misconduct. (3) The applicant claims the offense leading to the discharge was minor. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to a characterization upgrade being granted based on medical mitigation for most of the applicant's misconduct. (4) The applicant contends the educational benefits should not be denied because an incident occurred after the separation proceedings was initiated. 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, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local Department of Veterans Affairs office for further assistance. (5) The applicant contends harassment by noncommissioned officers to agitate the applicant behind closed doors, and speaking up led to an Article 15 punishment. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to a characterization upgrade being granted based on medical mitigation for most of the applicant's misconduct. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's Major Depressive Disorder outweighing the applicant's APFT failure and a portion of the applicant's misconduct. 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 Major Depressive Disorder outweighed the offenses (APFT failures, failing to submit a draft essay, and failing to properly notify an NCO). The Board found that the remaining medically unmitigated misconduct (and associated circumstances) of failing to sign in a non-military visitor, disrespecting an NCO, and providing a false official statement did not rise to a level to negate meritorious service. 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 AR20210001545 1