1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 31 May 2020 b. Date Received: 3 June 2020 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, at the time of discharge the applicant was having intense hip issues. The applicant went through the provided rehabilitation that the Army provided to no avail. The applicant continued to stress the pain the hip caused and how it hindered the applicant from passing the Army Physical Fitness Test; however, the applicant only received Physical Therapy, and stayed professional and completed the task and orders in a disciplined manner. Other than the applicant's physical fitness, the applicant was an outstanding Soldier. The applicant was seen for the excellent work performed and the views of the senior personnel appointed over the applicant after four years. The applicant would like to expand post-service opportunities by gaining an education for the future and to be able to provide for the family. The applicant is humbly requesting an upgrade from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 8 March 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, circumstances surrounding the discharge (hip issues), and the company commander's original recommendation of HD. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. 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: Physical Standards / AR 635-200 / Chapter 13-2E / JFT / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 30 May 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 March 2019 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for failing two consecutive Army Physical Fitness Tests on 12 October 2018 and 10 January 2019. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 9 April 2019 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 April 2019 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 August 2016 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92G10, Culinary Specialist / 2 years, 9 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecards, dated 12 October 2018 and 10 January 2019. Report of Mental Status Evaluation dated 13 February 2019, indicates the applicant met medical retention requirements IAW AR 40-501. The applicant had no behavioral health conditions that required an MEB; therefore, the applicant was able to fully participate in the administrative separation process. Several counseling statements reference failing the Army Physical Fitness Test. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Applicant Provided and/or AMHHR Listed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health Condition(s): None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; several letters of support; medical document; partial documents from separation packet; and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 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), dated 25 September 2019, 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) Chapter 13-2e states in pertinent part, that separation proceedings will be initiated for Soldiers without medical limitations that have two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test. The reason for discharge will be shown as physical standards. (6) Paragraph 13-10 stipulates the service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records (See paras 3-5 and 3-7). 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 "JFT" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13-2e, Physical standards. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1 defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. Evidence in the AMHRR indicate separation action was initiated against the applicant for failing two consecutive Army Physical Fitness Tests. Chapter 13-2e states in pertinent part, that separation proceedings will be initiated for Soldiers without medical limitations that have two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, at the time of discharge the applicant was having intense hip issues. The applicant went through the provided rehabilitation that the Army provided to no avail. The applicant continued to stress the pain the hip caused and how it hindered the applicant from passing the Army Physical Fitness Test; however, the applicant only received Physical Therapy, and stayed professional and completed the task and orders in a disciplined manner. Other than the applicant physical fitness, the applicant was an outstanding Soldier. The applicant was seen for the excellent work performed and the views of the senior personnel appointed over the applicant after four years. The applicant would like to expand the opportunities, by gaining an education for the future and to be able to provide for the family. The applicant is humbly requesting an upgrade from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. It should be noted eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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: Adjustment Disorder; Anxiety Disorder not otherwise stated; Mood Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the diagnoses of Adjustment DO and Anxiety DO NOS were made while the applicant was on active duty. VA service connection for Mood DO establishes it occurred in the Army. (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 are no mitigating BH conditions. While the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment DO while in service, this condition does not appear to have played any role in a failure to pass her APFTs. Regarding the hip condition, the applicant's bilateral hip condition appeared to be properly addressed. The applicant was treated conservatively with OTC anti-inflammatories (the pain did not require narcotics), profiling and skilled physical therapy. In the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, the hip condition did not warrant a medical discharge referral for the following reasons: condition was present for eight months and it was actively treated for about four months. The applicant was asymptomatic at the time of the chapter exam. The applicant was not on profile at the time of discharge and met retention standards of AR 40-501 chapter 3. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board's application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's Adjustment DO, Anxiety DO NOS, nor Mood DO outweigh the basis for applicant's separation - APFT failures - for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant seeks relief contending that at the time of discharge was having intense hip issues and the Army treatment options were not working. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's documented history of hip issues along with the length of honorable service void of misconduct and the commander's recommendation for an HD warrants an upgrade to the applicant's characterization of service. (2) Other than physical fitness, the applicant was an outstanding Soldier as witnessed by supervisors for four years. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's documented history of hip issues along with the length of honorable service void of misconduct and the commander's recommendation for an HD warrants an upgrade to the applicant's characterization of service. (3) The applicant would like to expand opportunities by gaining an education for the future and to provide for the applicant's family. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post- 9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. Further, the Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, circumstances surrounding the discharge (hip issues), and the company commander's original recommendation of HD. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because of the applicant's length of service, circumstances surrounding the discharge (hip issues), and the company commander's original recommendation. 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 AR20210005281 1