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, while the uncharacterized discharge aims to not characterize an individual, a prospective employer, especially in the federal government, may have concerns regarding the individual’s character. Before the applicant enlisted, a psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant as schizophrenic from having one session and later relocated to Africa. The medication did nothing and the applicant decided to stop seeking help. The applicant decided to enlist because the applicant lost a job and could not afford rent or food. The applicant served for 183 days and was removed from basic training on two occasions; the first was for pneumonia and the second for tearing all three major ligaments in the ankle (sprained). The applicant was placed in the reception battalion to recover, with an estimated recovery period of one year. The conditions for injured Soldiers were not ideal, being expected to stand in formation five times a day; otherwise, cleaned or did nothing. Several Soldiers attempted suicide and went absent without leave. The applicant has never been to prison, but seen many similarities. The applicant’s mental health and motivation slowly deteriorated. The applicant sought to escape the environment and would have instead been homeless. After the discharge, the injury took almost two years to heal. The applicant would not have found out what was wrong mentally until a panic attack landed the applicant in the hospital. The applicant was treated for anxiety and a panic disorder, but learned several self-coping strategies. The applicant sought to reenlist and a recruiter advised the applicant to have evidence of not being on medication for a year to be granted a waiver. Because the applicant served 183 days, the applicant would be considered prior service. The applicant met with a psychiatrist for over a year to document not being on medication and being misdiagnosed. The applicant was told the misdiagnosis would not matter because someone “professionally” indicated the applicant was schizophrenic. Even with evidence and a letter from the physician, the recruiters could not help the applicant. The applicant sought out other recruiters in other cities to no avail. The applicant has done everything to change the discharge. It does not seem the condition is eligible for a waiver with the reentry code 4. The applicant has been an employer with the Department of Defense for over five years and knows the discharge makes the applicant less competitive and affects relationships. If the applicant had been treated and appropriately diagnosed in 2003, the applicant would have been eligible for a waiver. The applicant has the coping mechanisms and maturity to deal with the injuries, isolation, and a successful military career. The applicant believes the outcome would have been different had today’s mental health support been around at the time. The applicant learned from the Army to persevere and build a more sustainable future. The applicant is an undergraduate with a Bachelor of Computer Science Degree. The applicant maintained a very well-paying job and is in a leadership position; married to the significant other of three years and getting ready to purchase the first house; and does not have any issues with the law or any criminal record. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 16 February 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: 3 April 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) convened: NIF (2) EPSBD Findings: NIF. (3) Date Applicant Reviewed and Concurred with the Findings, and Requested Discharge without Delay: NIF (4) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 October 2006 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-1 / None / 6 months, 2 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 092-2205, dated 2 April 2007, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 3 April 2007 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 Failed Medical/ Physical/ Procurement Standards. The DD Form 214 was authenticated with the applicant’s signature. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided Kaiser Permanente Verification of Treatment, dated 12 July 2019, reflecting the applicant was under a psychiatrist’s care since June 2016. The applicant was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder and prescribed medications. The applicant reported a previous diagnosis of schizophrenia by another provider in Florida but there were no findings / symptoms that were indicative of schizophrenia as per the psychiatrist’s examination and the applicant was not treated for it. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; self-authored statement; electronic mail message; medical documents; Civilian Career Brief; résumé; marriage certificate; Bachelor of Science Degree. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant used what was learned in the Army to persevere and build a more sustainable future. The applicant attained a Bachelor’s Degree; maintained a well-paying job and is in a leadership position; was married and getting ready to purchase the first house; and does not have any issues with the law or any criminal record. 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) 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. (5) Chapter 5, provides for the basic separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government. (6) 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. (7) 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. (8) 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-3 applies to a 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 applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the complete 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 being misdiagnosed as schizophrenic before enlistment and suffering from in-service mental health conditions. The applicant provided civilian medical documents reflecting the applicant was treated for generalized anxiety disorder since June 2016. The psychiatrist indicated the applicant reported being diagnosed previously with schizophrenia, but the treating psychiatrist did not find any symptoms which were indicative of schizophrenia. The applicant’s AMHRR was void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends if appropriately diagnosed in 2003, the applicant would be eligible for a waiver to serve in the Army. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “3.” There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends using what was learned in the Army to persevere and build a more sustainable future; attaining a Bachelor’s Degree; maintaining a well-paying job and is in a leadership position; being married and getting ready to purchase a house; and having no issues with the law. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 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? N/A. The applicant was not discharged for misconduct, rather, the discharge was based on applicant’s failure to meet the Army’s medical procurement standards for medical retention during their entry-level status. Therefore, there was no mitigation based on applicant’s medical conditions . (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 being misdiagnosed as schizophrenic before enlistment and suffering from in-service mental health conditions. The Board considered this contention, along with the Board medical advisor opine, and determined that the diagnosis at the time of discharge was verified and reflected that the applicant had Schizophrenia which existed prior to service. The Board further determined that the applicant’s post service diagnosis does not affect the appropriateness of the discharge. The Board found insufficient evidence in the AMHRR, and in the evidence provided by the applicant, of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command such that rebuts the presumption of government regularity. Accordingly, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends if appropriately diagnosed in 2003, the applicant would be eligible for a waiver to serve in the Army. The Board considered this contention and found insufficient evidence in the AMHRR, and in the evidence provided by the applicant, of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command such that rebuts the presumption of government regularity. Accordingly, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends using what was learned in the Army to persevere and build a more sustainable future; attaining a Bachelor’s Degree; maintaining a well-paying job in a leadership position; being married; and having no issues with the law. The Board considered the applicant’s post-service conduct, and determined that it does not mitigate or outweigh the appropriateness of the applicant’s discharge for failure to meet medical procurement standards due to having Schizophrenia existing prior to military service. 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 Schizophrenia existing prior to military service, the applicant’s Uncharacterized characterization of service is proper and equitable. The Board further considered the applicant’s contentions and found there is insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command resulting in any inequity or impropriety. The Board determined that 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 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, 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 / 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 AR20210002240 1