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: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change and a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the medical records found were the result of child abuse and forced medical fraud by proxy. The applicant's parent would force the applicant to lie to doctors as a child to receive medication, so the parent could receive attention from the doctors for the parent's own medical disorders. The applicant was a young naïve kid when the applicant initially entered the service, and did not admit to the items found in the medical files. The applicant knew they were false, and ignorantly believed the files were destroyed at the age of 18. In an attempt to finally put the terrible past behind the applicant focused on building the future, the applicant omitted these items on the enlistment records. Along with the change of the narrative reason, the applicant humbly requests the reentry code be changed to 1 in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to reenter the service as an officer and continue the career as intended. The applicant believes even though life gave the applicant a bad hand, the applicant is stronger and wiser because of the life the applicant has lived. If given the opportunity to reenlist, the applicant will bring knowledge and experience to the Armed Forces, and be a very beneficial asset in the missions of our country. In a records review conducted on 5 July 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: Fraudulent Entry / AR 635-200, Chapter 7, SEC V / JDA / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 29 August 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 31 July 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed to submit medical documents to the Military Entry Point Station (MEPS) which could have rejected the applicant from joining the Armed Forces. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 31 July 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 August 2013 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 November 2011 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 15Q10, Air Traffic Control Operator / 4 years, 2 months, 27 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 3 June 2009 - 27 November 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (6 February 2011 - 22 January 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 5 June 2009, reflects the applicant did not have any of the listed medical conditions and noted "I am in good health at this time." i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 10 July 2006, which reflects the applicant was being treated by Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in an outpatient basis for: oppositional defiant disorder of childhood; bipolar disorder; anxiety; and, unspecified psychoactive substance abuse. Report of Medical History, dated 7 February 2013, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Soldier in ongoing behavioral health therapy for concerns that were existent before entry into the Army. Denies SI/HI. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; health record; letter of explanation; DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is a parent and spouse and wants to give the children a better childhood and future than the applicant had. The applicant has also gained employment and is pursuing a college degree. 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 7-17 provides, in pertinent part, that a fraudulent entry is the procurement of an enlistment, reenlistment, or period of active service through any deliberate material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment of information which, if known and considered by the Army at the time of enlistment or reenlistment, might have resulted in rejection. This includes all disqualifying information requiring a waiver. A Soldier who concealed his or her conviction by civil court of a felonious offense normally will not be considered for retention. (4) Paragraph 7-23, stipulates A Soldier discharged under the provisions of this chapter will be furnished DD Form 256A or assigned a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. In addition to chapter 3, section II, the following factors will be considered in determining the character of service to be issued during the current period of service: Evidence of pre-service misrepresentation that would have precluded, postponed, or otherwise affected the Soldier's enlistment eligibility. Characterization will normally be under other than honorable conditions if the fraud involves concealment of a prior separation in which service was not characterized as honorable. The offense of fraudulent enlistment (10 USC 883; Art 83 UCMJ) occurs when the Soldier accepts pay or allowances following enlistment procured by willful and deliberate false representation or concealment of his/her qualifications. Therefore, upon receipt of pay and allowances, it becomes an in-service activity by the Soldier and may be considered in characterizing the period of service, even though he/she is not tried for the offense. When the individual is in an AWOL status, or in desertion, or in the hands of civil authorities, the provisions of chapter 2, section III, must be followed. 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 "JDA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 7, paragraph 7-17, fraudulent entry. 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. 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 a narrative reason change and a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 7, paragraph 7-17, AR 635-200 with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Fraudulent Entry, SEC V" and the separation code is "JDA." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. 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 desires 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 is a parent and spouse and wants to give the children a better childhood and future than the applicant had. The applicant has also gained employment and is pursuing a college degree. 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? 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 the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that an Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood did exist during his time in 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, based on the information in the applicant's medical record, it is the opinion of the Agency psychologist that there are no mitigating Behavioral Health conditions. Problems arising from Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood often contribute to difficulty coping, self-isolation, emotional instability, lack of motivation, interpersonal difficulties, poor sleep, poor concentration and self-medication with drugs/alcohol. Fraudulent enlistment by failure to submit psychiatric documents to Military Entry Point Station (MEPS) is not part of the natural history or sequelae of PTSD, or other behavioral health conditions, and, as such, is not mitigated under Liberal Consideration. (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 did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant's medical conditions of to MDD or Adjustment completely outweighed the basis for applicant's separation for failing to submit medical documents to the MEPS which could have rejected the applicant from joining the Armed Forces. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and voted not to change the narrative reason as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board determined the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant's service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By failing to submit medical documents to the MEPS which could have rejected the applicant from joining the Armed Forces, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (3) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with family issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. (4) The applicant contends being a parent and spouse and wants to give the children a better childhood and future than the applicant had. The applicant has also gained employment and is pursuing a college degree. 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 determined that the post- service factors do no warrant an upgrade for the requested relief. 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 contentions 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, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant's MDD or Adjustment Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offense of failing to submit medical documents to the MEPS which could have rejected the applicant from joining the Armed Forces. 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: AHLTA - Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology 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 MDD - Major Depressive Disorder 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 AR20210002800 1