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 uncharacterized. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, in consideration for an upgrade to honorable based on an 80 percent service-connected disability, the DD Form 214 needs to be corrected. The applicant has established the service caused and aggravated the disabilities. Failure in medical procurement should be replaced with an honorable discharge. The applicant desires to go to graduate school and pursue a master’s degree. The counselor informed the applicant the DD Form 214 needed to be corrected. The VA award letter demonstrates the disabilities. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 13 June 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: 12 May 2003 c. Separation Facts: The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the case separation file. However, the applicant provided several documents which are described below in 3c(1) through (4). (1) Date Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) convened: 29 April 2003 (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: Severe Atopic Dermatitis. (3) Date Applicant Reviewed and Disagreed with the Findings, and Requested the Case be Returned to the Medical Approving Authority for Reconsideration: 29 April 2003. The applicant did not agree with the findings because the stated condition did not exist prior to service. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of any further action on the request for reconsideration. (4) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 May 2003 / Uncharacterized 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 March 2003 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / some college / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-1 / None / 1 month, 25 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: Orders 126-1316, dated 6 May 2003, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 12 May 2003 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 5-11, with a narrative reason of Failure to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards. The DD Form 214 was authenticated with the applicant’s signature. The applicant had no time lost. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Veterans Administration Disability rating decision, dated 14 April 2016, reflecting the applicant was rated 70 percent disability for major depressive disorder. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 149; two VA Rating Decision letters; DD Form 214 and separation orders; SGLV Form 8286; DD Form 93; and DA Form 2-1. Additional evidence: DA Form 4707. 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 3-9 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 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. (6) 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. (7) Glossary prescribes entry-level status for RA Soldiers is the first 180 days of continuous AD or the first 180 days of continuous AD following a break of more than 92 days of active military service. 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 waivable and nonwaivable 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 waivable. 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 proceedings of the EPSBD provided by the applicant, 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 disagreed with the findings and requested the case be returned to the Medical Approving Authority for reconsideration. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of any further action on the request for reconsideration. The applicant’s 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 signature. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-11, by reason of Failed Medical/Physical/Procurement Standards, with a characterization of service of Uncharacterized. 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 the DD Form 214 needs to be corrected to reflect an upgrade based on being 80 percent disabled. Army Regulation 635-200 states a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if, at the time separation action is initiated, the Soldier has less than 180 days of continuous active duty service. The evidence of the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the Notification of Initiation of Separation Proceedings, however at the time of the discharge, the applicant had 56 days of continuous active duty service. Based on the time in service, the applicant was in an ELS status (Entry- Level Status), and the uncharacterized discharge was appropriate. The applicant contends the Veterans Administration (VA) has granted a service connection for medical conditions incurred and aggravated while on active duty. The applicant provided a VA rating decision which reflected the applicant was granted 70 percent disability for major depressive disorder. The available medical evidence in the AMHRR is void of any indication the applicant was suffering from the disabling mental condition during the discharge processing, warranting separation processing through medical channels. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits in pursuance of a master’s degree and being informed the DD Form 214 required correction. 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’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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 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 the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge is appropriate. There were no mitigating conditions or experiences that outweighed the applicant’s discharge. 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. In light of the current evidence of record, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate. (2) The applicant contends the Veterans Administration (VA) has granted a service connection for medical conditions incurred and aggravated while on active duty and the DD Form 214 needs to be corrected to reflect an upgrade based on being 80 percent disabled. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the Army when determining a member’s discharge characterization. After liberally considering all the evidence, including the VA determination, the Board found that the applicant had an unmitigated basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits in pursuance of a master’s degree and being informed the DD Form 214 required correction. 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. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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. Since the applicant was discharged for failing medical procurement standards due to Severe Atopic Dermatitis diagnosis prior to military 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 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 AR20210001861 1