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, being discharged for physical standards and is ineligible for education benefits. The applicant is simply trying to attend college to become better and support the family. The applicant had hip problems ever since advanced individual training and Airborne school, but genuinely tried to pass the APFT. The applicant had several family and unit issues and could not seem to get it together. The applicant states it is not an excuse and the applicant is not hiding behind it. The applicant has issues finding a job because of the discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 15 August 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service and the absence of any misconduct while serving. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board also noted an admin error and voted to adjust the applicant's DD Form 214 as outlined below. 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: 14 October 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 July 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 7 August 2013, the applicant was administered a record Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and the applicant failed to meet the standards set forth in Army Regulation 350-1. The applicant was administered another APFT on 10 April 2014 and failed to meet the standards for a second consecutive APFT failure. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable / The intermediate commander concurred with the immediate commander and recommended an honorable characterization of service. (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 4 August 2014, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 June 2012 / 4 years, 24 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 104 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 2 years, 3 months, 19 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: Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecards reflect the applicant failed record APFTs on 16 April, 24 June, 16 July, and 7 August 2013; and 1 April and 10 April 2014. Developmental Counseling Form, 2 May 2014, for pending separation under AR 635-200, Chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Performance, for failing two consecutive APFTs. Body Fat Content Worksheet, 27 August 2014, reflects the applicant was 28 pounds over the authorized weight and 4 percent over the authorized body fat. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical History, 24 June 2014, the applicant reported several medical issues, physical, which affected the applicant while running, and being seen by Behavioral Health for being scared and depressed. The examining medical physician noted in the comments section there were no red flags concerning the physical issues and the applicant was seen by Behavioral Health for anxiety. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, 3 July 2014, reflects the applicant was 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 post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and mild traumatic brain injury (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 applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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. Based on the AMHRR, someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, "AR 635-200, Para 13-2e." The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge under the provisions AR 635-200, Chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Performance. Army Regulations state a Soldier separated under this provision will receive a narrative reason of Unsatisfactory Performance, and a Separation Code of "JHJ." The applicant contends family and unit issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before the performance, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant's AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 3 July 2014, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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. 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: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant has a service connection for Major Depressive Disorder, which subsumes a diagnosis of adjustment disorder on active duty, and a VA treatment diagnosis of PTSD in part related to issues reported to have occurred on active duty. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant was not discharged for misconduct. Although he was service connected for MDD and diagnosed with adjustment disorder while on active duty, records do not suggest that depressive symptoms at the time of service were of such a severe nature as to be reasonably contributory to the APFT failures. There is also no nexus between APFT failure and any potential PTSD symptoms that may have been present on active duty given asserted trauma appears to have occurred toward the end of his enlistment following the APFT failures in question. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A. 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; however, the applicant's length of service and the absence of any misconduct while serving warrants an upgrade to the discharge. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends family and unit issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that the current characterization of service was not equitable based on the applicant's length of service along with the absence of any misconduct while serving and voted to upgrade to Honorable. (2) 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. (3) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board considered this contention, but it does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service and the absence of any misconduct outweighing the basis for separation. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable as the current characterization of service does not reflect the applicant's length of service and the absence of any misconduct while serving. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the applicant's reason for discharge to Unsatisfactory Performance and accompanying SPD code to JHJ, in correction of the administrative error made during separation proceedings. (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: Unsatisfactory Performance / JHJ d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 13 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 AR20210001648 1