1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 22 July 2020 b. Date Received: 28 July 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 uncharacterized. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge characterization prevents Veterans Affairs (VA) and other benefits that the applicant would otherwise be entitled to. As indicated in the applicant’s personnel file, the applicant served for 4 months and 11 days, and was discharged as a direct result of injuries the applicant sustained in the line of duty. The VA found the applicant’s service-connected injuries so severe, that the applicant was given a 100 percent service-connected total and permanent disability rating (see attached) and assigned an “Under Honorable Conditions” character of service. The applicant prays that the Board will agree that the applicant’s discharge was not the applicant’s own fault or doing, and the Board would consider upgrading the discharge character to honorable. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 August 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Condition, Not a Disability / AR 635- 200, Chapter 5-17 / JFV / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 29 March 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 March 2019 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 13 February 2019, a recommendation for separation in accordance with AR 635-200, Chapter 5-17 was sent to the company commander, due to right shoulder pain/injury. The company commander concurred with the recommendation that separation be initiated due to the lengthy recovery for the injury. (3) Recommended Characterization: Uncharacterized (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 March 2019 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 March 2019 / Uncharacterized 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 November 2018 / 2 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 86 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-1 / None / 4 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Physical Profile reflects the applicant had the following medical conditions: right shoulder injury/pain. A Developmental Counseling Form, dated 9 March 2019, reflects the applicant was counseled for an intent to initiate a chapter 5-17, AR 635-200 for physical conditions that would prohibit the applicant from training. The applicant was medically evaluated and identified as possibly having a neurovascular bundle compromised which prevents the applicant from performing regular physical readiness training and participating in scheduled training events without increase in pain and potentially raising further harm. The medical evaluation also states that the applicant would need 6-12 weeks to fully recover. The applicant was identified as having a poor prognosis for completion of training in a timely manner. This separation was not punitive in nature but was recommended to prevent further injury. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Department of Veterans Affairs summary of benefits, dated 20 July 2020, reflecting the applicant was rated 100 percent disability total and permanent. The disabilities are not listed in this letter. (2) AMHRR Listed: None. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; VA Summary of Benefits; VA Education Program 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 3-9 states a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status. (4) Chapter 5 provides for the basic separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government. (5) Paragraph 5-1, states a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, general (under honorable conditions), or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status. A general (under honorable conditions) discharge is normally inappropriate for individuals separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-14 (previously paragraph 5-17) unless properly notified of the specific factors in the service that warrant such characterization. (6) Paragraph 5-14 (previously paragraph 5-17) specifically provides that a Soldier may be separated for other physical or mental conditions not amounting to a disability, which interferes with assignment to or performance of duty and requires that the diagnosis be so severe that the Soldier’s ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired. (7) Glossary defines entry-level status for RA Soldiers is the first 180 days of continuous AD or the first 180 days of continuous AD following a break of more than 92 days of active military service. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) 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 “JFV” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-14 (previously Chapter 5-17), Condition, Not a Disability. 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 Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s AMHRR includes evidence the applicant, while in training status, was evaluated by competent medical authority and determined the applicant had a right shoulder injury/pain. It was determined this injury would prevent the applicant from completing training in a timely manner. The applicant contends, in effect, the discharge characterization prevents VA and other benefits that the applicant would otherwise be entitled to. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits and other benefits does 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. The applicant contends, in effect, the discharge was a direct result of injuries the applicant sustained in the line of duty and prays that the Board will agree that the applicant’s discharge was not the applicant’s own fault or doing, and the Board would consider upgrading the discharge character to honorable. Physical Profile reflects the applicant has a severe right shoulder injury/pain due to road marching while on duty. The applicant contends the VA has determined the applicant’s service was “Under Honorable Conditions.” The applicant provided a VA letter, dated 20 July 2020, which reflects the VA determined the period of service from 19 November 2018 to 29 March 2019, as “Under Honorable Conditions.” The ADRB is not bound by U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions, nor do VA decisions have any bearing on the decisions of the ADRB. Decisions reached by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to determine if former servicemembers rate certain VA benefits do not affect previous discharge decisions made by the Department of the Army. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the Army when determining a members discharge characterization. 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 diagnosis: Mood Disorder NOS. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? No. Documentation is void of a behavioral health diagnosis or liberal consideration experience prior to the basis for separation. Rather, the service connection is more likely than not secondary to the medical conditions impact and resulting discharge. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, the discharge characterization prevents VA and other benefits that the applicant would otherwise be entitled to. 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. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, the discharge was a direct result of injuries the applicant sustained in the line of duty and prays that the Board will agree that the applicant’s discharge was not the applicant’s own fault or doing, and the Board would consider upgrading the discharge character to honorable. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence of mitigating factors to warrant a discharge upgrade. (3) The applicant contends the VA has determined the applicant’s service was “Under Honorable Conditions. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the Army when determining a member’s discharge characterization. After liberally considering all the evidence, including the VA determination, the Board found that the applicant had an unmitigated basis for separation. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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 the applicant was not found to hold an in-service behavioral health condition that would mitigate or excuse the discharge. The Board considered the applicant's contention regarding being injured in the line of duty and found that the totality of the applicant's record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and 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 AR20210005429 1