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, disagreement with the type of discharge received. The applicant states a medical discharge should have been given, and the current discharge has affected the applicant’s daily life. In 2014, while attending a language course, a coconut fell from a palm tree and struck the applicant on the head. After the injury, the applicant went to sick call and received a profile for 24 hours. The applicant was never sent to a hospital to be checked for internal injuries. In 2015, the applicant attended basic training and passed a health test, which included a mobility exam, laboratory tests and a physical fitness test. While in basic, the applicant was pushed to the ground and the applicant’s bags fell on top of them. When the applicant started walking, the applicant’s legs felt extremely weak and had neck and back pain. The applicant was sent to physical therapy but stopped because it was too painful. An MRI found damage in the upper back, but everything else was okay. The applicant’s doctor recommended separation from the Army. The applicant states requesting copies of test results, but the doctor refused to hand them over. The applicant believes the discharge was unfair because since the injury, the applicant was never given the opportunity to rest and was discharged without benefits. The applicant did receive a 30 percent incapacity, but there is nothing in the system, which reflects what happened to the applicant during basic training. The applicant states because of the incidents, the applicant suffers from headaches, migraines, neck, back, hands and leg pain. The applicant claims to have PTSD and cannot work. The applicant’s spouse now must work two jobs to support and maintain their family. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 30 March 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: The case separation file is void from the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR); however the applicant provided several documents, which reflect the information below in 3c (1) through 3c (4). a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Failed Medical/Physical/Procurement Standards / AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-11 / JFW / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 11 December 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) convened: 4 November 2015 (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 (EPTS). The applicant was diagnosed with: Intervertebral Disc Degeneration of the Cervical and Thoracolumbar spines U-3 and L-3 ICD-10. (3) Date Applicant Reviewed and Concurred with the Findings, and Requested Discharge without Delay: 24 November 2015 (4) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 December 2015 / Uncharacterized 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 August 2015 / NIF (IADT) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 31 / some college / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / None / 11 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 9 January 2014 – 11 December 2015 / UNC (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: EPSBD findings as described in previous paragraph 3c. The applicant provided a copy of a VA disability Rating decision dated 26 August 2016, which reflects the applicant was rated 10 percent disability for Cervical and thoracic disc herniation lumbar strain and left sciatica (disc, herniation spondylosis, and strain) Claimed as degenerative disc disease and back pain. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; Self authored letter; Orders 342-2208; DA Form 4707; Separation File; VA Rating Decision; VA Form 21-4138; DA Form 689. 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) Chapter 5, provides for the basic separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government. (4) 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. (5) 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. (6) 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. 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. Delete if NA 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-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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. 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 suffering from PTSD. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from PTSD. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation (MSE). The applicant contends should have been given a medical discharge. The applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. The applicant contends discharge was unfair because since the injury, the applicant was never given the opportunity to rest and was discharged without benefits. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends because of the incident, the applicant suffers from headaches, migraines, neck, back, hands and leg pain. The applicant provided a copy of Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings which reflect a diagnosis of Intervertebral Disc Degeneration of the Cervical and Thoracolumbar spines U-3 and L-3 ICD-10. Also, a copy of a VA disability Rating decision, dated 26 August 2016, which reflects the applicant was rated 10 percent disability for Cervical (disc, herniation spondylosis, and strain) Claimed as degenerative disc disease and back pain) and thoracic disc herniation lumbar strain and left sciatica (claimed as degenerative disc disease and back pain). 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. Additionally, the applicant asserts PTSD, 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 that the applicant is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for Major Depressive Disorder. Service connection establishes that applicant's Major Depressive Disorder existed during military service. Applicant self-asserts having PTSD at the time of military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for Major Depressive Disorder. Applicant self-asserts having PTSD at the time of military service. However, there is no nexus between PTSD or Major Depressive Disorder and Failing Medical Physical Procurement Standards for a physical condition. Applicant’s Uncharacterized discharge was appropriate. While there is evidence that the VA has also service connected the applicant for physical conditions to include migraine headaches, intervertebral disc syndrome, and paralysis of all radicular nerve groups as asserted by the applicant, the VA operates under a different set of laws. Applicant’s service connection by the VA does not negate the appropriateness of the Uncharacterized discharge for a condition that EPTS. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board’s Medical Advisor’s opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s MDD or asserted PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – failing procurement standards due to a physical condition that existed prior to service– for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined there was insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant’s assertion of PTSD, and that there is no nexus between either the applicant’s MDD or asserted PTSD and the discharge for failing procurement standards due to a physical condition which existed prior to service. Thus, the Uncharacterized characterization of service is proper and equitable as the applicant’s service was not long enough to be properly assessed. A general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions is not authorized under ELS conditions and an honorable discharge (HD) is rarely ever granted. An HD may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. 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. (2) The applicant contends should have been given a medical discharge. The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. The Board determined that the applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. (3) The applicant contends discharge was unfair because since the injury, the applicant was never given the opportunity to rest and was discharged without benefits. The Board considered the totality of the evidence, to include the Board’s Medical Advisor’s opine, and while the applicant asserts that an injury impacted military service, the Board determined that the applicant’s ability to service was impacted by the applicant’s Intervertebral Disc Degeneration of the Cervical and Thoracolumbar spines U-3 and L-3 ICD-10 condition existing prior to service. The Board further 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. (4) The applicant contends, because of the incident, the applicant suffers from headaches, migraines, neck, back, hands and leg pain, and is service connected by the VA for these 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 presence of the applicant’s physical complications do not negate the appropriateness of the discharge for the applicant’s physical condition which existed prior to service. c. The Board determined the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of 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. Since the applicant was discharged for failing physical/medical procurement standards due to the applicant being diagnosed with Intervertebral Disc Degeneration of the Cervical and Thoracolumbar spines U-3 and L-3 ICD-10, and there being no nexus between the physical conditions which EPTS and the applicant’s MDD and asserted PTSD, the current Uncharacterized characterization of service 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 AR20210002217 1