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 failing an Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). At the time of taking the APFT the applicant was unfortunate enough to run into the abuser. The applicant was a victim of MST which caused the applicant to go into great panic and shock, being unable to properly complete the APFT in a satisfactory manner. In the military records the applicant was hospitalized in Salina Reginal Healthcare in December of 2008 because of such trauma. The applicant was attacked by another uniformed member in December of 2008. The applicant was threatened with their life to keep silent and did so until the applicant finally told the VA in Kansas City in 2014. After being attacked the applicant requested to PCS to Fort Wainwright. While retaking the APFT there after training for so long, the applicant ran into the abuser during such event. The applicant immediately went into shock and panic, causing the applicant to fail the APFT. The PTSD from the event and seeing the abuser was more than the applicant could bare. The applicant was scared to come forth with this information and is still embarrassed at such event. What was initially deemed to be unfit for duty, was truly nothing more than an explosive account of PTSD caused by someone the applicant believed was far away. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 25 April 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Bipolar Disorder and MST outweighing the basis for separation - APFT Failure. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. The Board determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635- 200, Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 24 February 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 January 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant had two consecutive record failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test. In accordance with AR 635-200, paragraph 13-2e, initiation of separation proceedings is required for Soldiers without medical limitations who have two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test per AR 350-1, unless the responsible commander chooses to impose a bar re-enlistment per 601-280. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 14 January 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 8 February 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 August 2007 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 68Q10, Pharmacy Specialist / 3 years, 2 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard reflects the applicant failed record APFTs on 14 September 2009 and 22 October 2009. Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard reflects the applicant failed record APFTs on 14 September 2009 and 22 October 2009. FG Article 15, dated 2 November 2009, for on or about 17 September 2009, wrongfully and falsely alter by writing on the identification card in words and figures as follows: changing "1989May30" to "1980May30." The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $699 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Memorandum, Article 15, UCMJ, Appeal, dated 10 November 2009, reflects the applicant requested to appeal the punishment under Article 15 UCMJ. The applicant requested the decision by the Commander be overturned. Memorandum, Information for Article 15 Appeal, dated 17 November 2009, reflects the Commander detailed the reasons for the Article 15 stating the applicant was charged with altering the ID card to appear the applicant was 21 and be able to enter establishments the applicant would otherwise not be able to enter. The Commander also states learning the applicant had received two other Article 15s, one for failure to report, and one for altering a medication orders, and action which the applicant was not authorized to perform. Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for performance counseling; being in possession of two military ID cards, with one containing altered birthday; and two APFT failures. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 October 2009, 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 was diagnosed with: Axis I: Occupational Problem. Report of Medical History, dated 13 November 2009, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Panic attacks. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 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 13-8, prescribes for the service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records. (6) 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. 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 "JHJ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance. 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. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions). The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unsatisfactory Performance," and the separation code is "JHJ." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates 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 being a victim of sexual assault however did not report it. The applicant states running into the abuser while taking the second APFT causing the applicant panic and shock and not being able to complete the APFT. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends being hospitalized in December 2008 because of the trauma and suffering from PTSD. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of a hospitalization. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 30 October 2009, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Occupational Problem. 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, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Bipolar Disorder. Additionally, the applicant asserts MST, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant was service connected for Bipolar Disorder and has asserted MST while on active duty and relevant to circumstances of discharge. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant is service connected for Bipolar Disorder with noteworthy mood and impulsivity concerns on active duty, and has asserted a history of MST. Under typical circumstances neither mental health conditions to include Bipolar Disorder nor MST would not mitigate APFT failure; however, the unexpected presence of assailant at an APFT leading to significant anxiety and panic (which is asserted) would reasonably result in suboptimal performance on the APFT in question. Therefore, the advisor finds the MST asserted by applicant mitigates the basis of discharge as it reasonably contributed to performance on this specific APFT. (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 Bipolar Disorder and MST outweighed the basis for separation - APFT Failure - for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention and accordingly voted to upgrade the narrative reason for separation based on the applicant's Bipolar Disorder and MST outweighing the basis for separation - APFT Failure. (2) The applicant contends being a victim of sexual assault however did not report it. The applicant states running into the abuser while taking the second APFT causing the applicant panic and shock and not being able to complete the APFT. The Board considered this contention and accordingly voted to upgrade the narrative reason for separation based on the applicant's Bipolar Disorder and MST outweighing the basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends being hospitalized in December 2008 because of the trauma and suffering from PTSD. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's Bipolar Disorder and MST outweighing the basis for separation. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Bipolar Disorder and MST outweighing the basis for separation - APFT Failure. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's Bipolar Disorder and MST outweighing the basis for separation - APFT Failure. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate . (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JFF. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation and though the applicant's misconduct is mitigated, the BH conditions are service limiting and thus, the reentry eligibility (RE) code will remain RE-3. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Secretarial Authority / JFF d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 15 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 AR20210002019 1