1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 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, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant joined the Iowa Army National Guard (IAARNG) on 18 May 2012 with the intent to complete Officer Candidate School (OCS) and become a commissioned officer in the ARNG. On 18 June 2012, the applicant received orders to attend ten weeks of basic training. Subsequently, the applicant would attend OCS with the military occupational specialty of 09S10. After completing the first phase of OCS, the applicant returned to the IAARNG to continue training. In August 2013, the applicant suffered an anxiety attack because of stressors from the applicant’s pending nuptials and employment. On 21 November 2013, the applicant completed a DA Form 7349 (Initial Medical Review - Annual Medical Certificate). The applicant noted the applicant was currently prescribed Paxil and Xanax and had been diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder and panic attacks. On 8 January 2014, the applicant received a Physical Profile preventing the applicant from conducting any functional activities. Major G. B. signed the profile and added the annotation, “Expected date of fully mission capable: 20140408.” Despite the profile stating the applicant would be mission effective on 8 April 2014, the IAARNG administratively separated the applicant. The applicant was discharged, with an uncharacterized discharge by reason of “failure to meet medical procurement standards of AR 40-501, chapter 2 prior to entry on lET” and a reentry code of RE-3. The applicant served a total of 1 year, 7 months, and 29 days in the ARNG. Although the applicant served longer than 180 days, the applicant had not completed initial training to become an officer and was eligible to receive an uncharacterized discharge. The applicant’s chain of command made a material error of discretion by discharging the applicant and giving the applicant a RE-3 reentry code. The applicant’s anxiety and panic attacks were only for a limited period and were not ongoing conditions which should have led to the discharge. The applicant attempted to reenter the IAARNG in September 2014, and despite favorable medical documentation, the applicant was denied a waiver. Since the applicant’s discharge, the applicant married; has obtained a Bachelor’s degree at Saint Ambrose University, graduating Cum Laude; and is pursuing a Master’s degree. The applicant is employed with John Deer since 2013. The applicant received the 2016 Vice President Award for exceptional performance. The applicant volunteers as an assistant football coach. The applicant will continue to be stigmatized because of the improper discharge. The applicant has impressed many individuals along the journey through life. In support of this application for relief, Senator C. G. has taken an interest in the applicant’s attempt to correct the discharge paperwork. The applicant requests upgrade to honorable, a narrative reason change to Secretarial Authority, and reentry code change to RE-1. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 13 October 2022, 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: Failure to Meet Medical Procurement Standards / NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-35c(5)(a) / NA / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 16 January 2014 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: 18 May 2012 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / 2 Years College / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / None / 1 year, 7 months, 29 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: Active Duty Report reflects the applicant entered on active duty on 25 June 2012 and departed or was released from active duty on 6 September 2012. The applicant completed nine weeks of basic combat training. Orders 143-021, dated 23 May 2013, reflects the applicant was promoted to E-6, effective 31 May 2013. The applicant must complete Officer Candidate School as a condition of the promotion. Failure to complete the course would be cause for reduction without board action or appeal. Orders 203-053, dated 22 July 2013, reflects the applicant was reduced from E-6 to E-3, effective 12 July 2013, with a date of rank of 25 June 2012. The NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of NGR 600-200, paragraph 6-35c(5)(a), for Failure to meet medical procurement standards of AR 40-501, Chapter 2, prior to entry on IET; AR 135-178, paragraph 6-6a; and AR 4-501, paragraph 2-27. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided: Initial Medical Review – Annual Medical Certificate, dated 21 November 2013, reflects the applicant indicated the applicant had medical or dental problem since the last periodic physical examination; the applicant was taking Paxil and Xanax; and was diagnosed with anxiety disorder. Physical Profile, dated 8 January 2014, which reflects the applicant had unresolved behavioral health issues. The applicant’s expected date to be fully mission capable was 8 April 2014. The applicant was undergoing a behavioral health evaluation for severe anxiety and panic attacks. The applicant was not to have any weapons, combative or field activities, and may have had difficulty wearing the uniform. Military duty was at the command’s discretion. The applicant was unable to deploy. Medical Prescreen of Medical History Report, dated 9 September 2014, which reflects the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: History of anxiety disorder, separated from the Army National Guard. The Healing Heart Center letter dated 5 August 2014, which reflects a Licensed Clinical Social Worker indicated the applicant sought therapy for anxiety, over a year ago, and was prescribed medication. The applicant has not taken the medication since September 2013 and the applicant’s symptoms were under control. The prognosis was excellent and the applicant was determined to be fit to serve the country in the military organization. Psychiatry assessment for returning to the service, dated 13 August 2014, which reflects Dr. G. N. found through a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation of the applicant, could not find any possibility of any psychiatric diagnosis neither had any personality disorder. The applicant did not have any contributory factors of any substance abuse issues and was well adjusted in all areas of day-to-day life. Bettendorf Pediatrics and Family Practice letter, dated 12 November 2014, reflects the applicant was being treated for anxiety in August 2013 and was taking Paxil and Xanax from 30 August to 6 September 2013. Confidential Psychological Evaluation, undated, which reflects the applicant was evaluated because the applicant was applying to join the Marine Corps and the applicant disclosed a history of mental health treatment which occurred during 2013 and 2014. The psychologist concluded the applicant’s problems have been resolved based upon clinical interview and psychological testing. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; NGB Form 22; Legal Brief with all exhibits; self-authored statements; initial active duty for training orders; Personal Qualification Record; Initial Medical Review – Annual Medical Certificate; in-service medical records; civilian medical records; Marriage Certificate; MBA letters of recommendation; Saint Ambrose University Official Academic Transcript; résumé; 2016 Senior Vice President Award; Congressional documents; Enlisted Record Brief; NGB Letter; Iowa ARNG letter; Army Review Boards Agency letter; Confidential Psychological Evaluation; electronic mail messages. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends completing a Bachelor’s degree at Saint Ambrose University, graduating Cum Laude; pursuing a Master’s degree; being employed with John Deer since 2013, receiving the 2016 Vice President Award; and volunteering as an assistant football coach. 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 135-178 prescribes the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. (1) Paragraph 2-9a prescribes an honorable characterization 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. (2) Paragraph 2-11a, Service will be described as uncharacterized if separation processing is initiated while a Soldier is in an entry level status. (3) Chapter 6, prescribes the reasons a Soldier may be separated for the convenience of the Government. (4) Paragraph 6-6, states a discharge will be accomplished on determination that a Soldier was not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on IADT. A Soldier found to be not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards will be discharged on the earliest practical date following such determination and prior to entry on IADT. (5) Paragraph 6-8, prescribes the service of a Soldier separated under this chapter will be characterized as honorable, unless an uncharacterized description of service is required by paragraph 2–11, or a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) is warranted under chapter 2, section III. (6) Glossary states upon enlistment, a Soldier qualifies for entry level status during: The first 180 days of continuous active military service or the first 180 days of continuous active service after a service break of more than 92 days of active service. A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty or who is serving under a call or order to active duty for 180 days or less begins entry level status upon enlistment in a reserve component. Entry level status for such a member of a reserve component terminates as follows: 180 days after beginning training if the Soldier is ordered to ADT for one continuous period of 180 days or more; or, 90 days after the beginning of the second period of ADT if the Soldier is ordered to ADT under a program that splits the training into two or more separate periods of active duty. For the purposes of characterization of service, the Soldier’s status is determined by the date of notification as to the initiation of separation proceedings. e. National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, establishes standards, policies, and procedures for the management of the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) enlisted Soldiers in the functional areas of: Classification and Reclassification; Personnel Management; Assignment and Transfer, including interstate transfer; Special Duty Assignment Pay; Enlisted Separations; and, Command Sergeant Major Program. (1) Chapter 6 sets the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted Soldiers from the ARNG/ARNGUS. (2) Paragraph 6-8a, prescribes an honorable characterization 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 6-35c(5)(a), provides for separation of enlisted Soldiers who are not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards. Including Soldiers who fail to meet medical procurement standards of AR 40-501, chapter 2 prior to entry on IET including positive urinalysis and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in entrance physicals: RE 3, or RE 4 for HIV; LC: MK. 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-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. Delete if NA. 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. Delete if NA. 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 specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army National Guard. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), which indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-35c(5)(a), by reason of failure to meet procurement standards of AR 40-501, 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 of Chapter 6-35c(5)(a), NGR 600-200, with an uncharacterized discharge. The narrative reason specified by NGR 600-200, for a discharge under this paragraph is “Failed to Meet Medical Procurement Standards.” Governing regulations stipulate no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the reentry code for discharge needs changed to rejoin the Military Service. 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 contends the command erred by discharging the applicant because the applicant’s anxiety and panic attacks were only for a limited period. The AMHRR is void of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge. The AMHRR reflects the applicant entered active duty on 25 June 2012 and departed or was released from active duty on 6 September 2012, after completing basic training. Orders reflect the applicant was promoted to E-6 and as a condition, the applicant had to complete OCS, but the applicant was later reduced to E-3. The applicant presented medical documents which reflect the applicant was treated for anxiety in August 2013 and was taking Paxil and Xanax from 30 August to 6 September 2013. The issue had been resolved since September 2013. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends completing a Bachelor’s degree at Saint Ambrose University, graduating Cum Laude; pursuing a Master’s degree; being employed with John Deer since 2013, receiving the 2016 Vice President Award; and volunteering as an assistant football coach. 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. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good conduct after leaving the Army. 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: Anxiety Disorder (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant had a history of being treated for Anxiety during 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 there is clear medical documentation that applicant had a history of being treated for Anxiety. While post-service medical documentation supports resolution of applicant’s Anxiety Disorder, there is insufficient evidence to support applicant’s contention that an Uncharacterized discharge due to failing to meet medical procurement standards was not appropriate. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence demonstrated that the applicant’s anxiety existed in service and was service-limiting, thus the discharge was proper and equitable. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and noted the applicant’s history of being treated for Anxiety, and determined the applicant’s discharge for failure to meet procurement standards is proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends the reentry code for discharge needs changed to rejoin the Military Service. The Board voted to maintain the RE-code as an RE-3, which is a waivable 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 Board considered this contention and determined that UNC is the proper characterization of service 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. (3) The applicant contends the command erred by discharging the applicant because the applicant’s anxiety and panic attacks were only for a limited period. 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 although post-service documentation notes the applicant no longer suffers from Anxiety, the separation authority did not err by separating the applicant for failure to meet procurement standards as the applicant at that point had a documented history of Anxiety with treatment and medication required and by the applicant’s own testimony interfered with work. (4) The applicant contends completing a Bachelor’s degree at Saint Ambrose University, graduating Cum Laude, and pursuing a Master’s degree; being employed with John Deer and Company since 2013, receiving the 2016 Vice President Award; and volunteering as an assistant football coach. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service accomplishments do not outweigh the correctness of the separation for failure to meet medical procurement standards. c. The Board determined that 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 medical procurement standards due to the applicant’s history of Anxiety, 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, 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 AR20210002498 1