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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was diagnosed with PTSD and he is now aware his eating was due to the PTSD, which then led to his discharge. The applicant served in Iraq and was not treated for PTSD, which was the reason he was self-soothing with eating. The applicant's discharge was done quickly and many of the actions were not processed correctly. The applicant was not given reasonable time to correct any deficiencies because he was counseled in a month and then discharged the next month. The applicant was never able to partake in remedial PT or offered any rehabilitative efforts. He was never transferred with at least two months of duty in each unit; while this could be waived the circumstances were never met for such a waiver. The applicant was not disruptive; he had no disciplinary issues aside for APFT failure. The applicant was separated without a mental examination and now he knows why. The applicant needed help from the country he fought for, but he is now just receiving help. The applicant needs an upgrade because not only does a general (under honorable conditions) carry a stigma but it deprives the applicant of various benefits. When there is a doubt, it should be resolved in favor of an honorable discharge. An honorable discharge is required if the government introduces limited use evidence (citing Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-8 and 3-8g). Furthermore, a chapter 13 usually does not warrant this type of character of service; a general (under honorable conditions) usually is used for people who have had nonjudicial punishments such as an Article 15. The applicant has not had an Article 15 in his entire military record nor any major disciplinary issues. The applicant is requesting an upgrade to enhance his career opportunities. In a records review conducted on 27 January 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD diagnoses). Therefore, the Board granted relief in the form of an upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code, and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635- 200, Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 December 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 November 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed five consecutive Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFTs). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 18 November 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 November 2009 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 July 2006 / 4 years, 20 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 3 years, 5 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (13 January 2007 - 4 July 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecards reflect the applicant failed record APFTs on 25 July 2008, 8 August 2008, 9 September 2008, 22 October 2008, 29 April 2009, and 23 September 2009. Body Fat Content Worksheets - (Male) reveal the applicant exceeded the Army's body fat content on 24 February 2009 by 10 percent; 9 April 2009 by 12 percent; 24 June 2009 by 12 percent; 24 July 2009 by 8 percent; and, 3 September 2009 by 9 percent. Four Memorandums for Record reveal the applicant was enrolled in the Army Weight Control Program. Eight Developmental Counseling Forms, from 22 October 2008 to 22 October 2009 for APFT failure; failure to maintain Army height and weight standards; and possible adverse actions for failure to pass the APFT and meet the Army weight standards, bar to reenlistment and/or elimination from service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 September 2009, reflects the applicant was mentally responsible; able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right; and, could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder. The applicant provided the Department of Veterans Affairs letter, dated 25 May 2019, reflecting the applicant was rated 70 percent service-connected disability; the letter is void of the medical condition(s) which were rated. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 293; Unit Clearance Record; Installation Clearance Record; Enlisted Record Brief; DD Form 214; Recommendation for Award; VA Disability Letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. (5) Paragraph 13-10, prescribes for the service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records. An honorable characterization of service generally is required when the Government initially introduces limited use evidence. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JHJ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-3 applies to 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 contends he was diagnosed with PTSD, which then led to his discharge and he was separated without a mental examination. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service adjustment disorder. The applicant provided a VA letter, reflecting the applicant was rated 70 percent service-connected disability; the letter is void of the medical condition(s) which were rated. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 30 September 2009, which indicates the applicant mentally responsible; able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right; and, could participate in the proceedings. The MSE reflects a diagnosis of adjustment disorder. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends he was not given reasonable time to correct any deficiencies or offered any rehabilitative efforts. The applicant was separated based on APFT failure and he was counseled on more than one occasion regarding his APFT failure and the actions which may be taken against him for failing the APFT. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the separation authority may waive the rehabilitative requirements in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate such a transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. The applicant contends, a chapter 13 usually does not warrant this type of character of service; a general (under honorable conditions) usually is used for people who have had nonjudicial punishments such as an Article 15. Applicable regulations state each case must be decided on an individual basis, considering the unique facts and circumstances of the particular case. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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 applicant has PTSD that could excuse applicant's basis of separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant has been diagnosed and service-connected by the VA with PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor determined that the medical condition does excuse the basis of separation. Applicant asserts that he was using food to self-medicate his PTSD at the time of service, which contributed to his inability to pass the weight standard on multiple APFTs. Given the nexus between PTSD and using substances to self-medicate, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that it is more likely than not that applicant's PTSD actually mitigated applicant's basis for separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that PTSD is often associated with self-medication, which in this case was food, and therefore outweighed the basis for applicant's separation for the reasons listed in (3) above. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends he was diagnosed with PTSD, which then led to his discharge and he was separated without a mental examination. The Board determined that the applicant was self-medicating PTSD with food, which caused weight gain and APFT failures, and therefore, relief is warranted. (2) The applicant contends he was not given reasonable time to correct any deficiencies or offered any rehabilitative efforts. The Board determined there is no evidence in applicant's record to support this contention. The record shows applicant was given five APFTs over 14 months to correct his failed APFTs, which is ample time as determined by regulation. (3) The applicant contends, a chapter 13 usually does not warrant this type of character of service; a general (under honorable conditions) usually is used for people who have had nonjudicial punishments such as an Article 15. The Board considered this contention and determined applicant's current characterization was too harsh and warranted an upgrade since applicant's BH conditions excused the basis of separation misconduct. (4) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was improper based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD service-connected condition that excuses the basis for separation). d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD excused the basis for discharge, and there is no evidence of other misconduct. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code, 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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20210003244 1