1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 15 April 2019 b. Date Received: 5 August 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, a narrative reason change, and a reentry eligibility code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, an upgrade would allow the applicant to enlist in the U.S. Army Reserve. In 2013, the applicant enlisted in the Army and was able to pass everything needed and make it to basic training. While in Fort Sill, the applicant was questioned regarding the applicant’s twitching, which the applicant has been able to control. The twitching began shortly after the applicant’s Bell’s Palsy cleared up. This became such an issue the applicant was being seen by medical professionals’ multiple times a week to determine whether the applicant could remain in the service. Weeks later, the applicant met with a Major who offered to provide the applicant something to help, but the applicant refused because the applicant had been dealing with the twitching for years and had been to the applicant’s doctor and the eye doctor, who both told the applicant there was nothing wrong. After the applicant refused the Major’s offer, it was decided the applicant would not stay but would be allowed to reenlist with a waiver. After five years and much consideration, the applicant decided to visit a recruiter regarding what the applicant needed to do to reenlist, only to find out there was a code on the applicant’s DD Form 214, which prevented the applicant from reenlisting. The applicant was confused because the applicant was told the applicant would be able to reenlist. The recruiter stated the code meant the applicant did not disclose the medical condition during the first enlistment. The applicant did inform the recruiter at the time and was informed the condition was not disqualifying. This situation is a misunderstanding and the applicant desires to have it corrected and be able to reenlist. The applicant desires the discharge code and reentry eligibility code to be corrected to reflect the applicant disclosed the medical information at the time of enlistment. The upgrade would allow the applicant to reenlist and finish the goal the applicant set out to achieve but did not. The applicant will enlist in the Army Reserve. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 26 July 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: Failed Medical/Physical/Procurement Standards / AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-11 / JFW / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 1 November 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) convened: 8 October 2013 (2) EPSBD Findings: The findings of the evaluating physicians indicate the applicant was medically unfit for appointment or enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians the condition existed prior to service. The applicant was diagnosed with: Bell Palsy. The applicant was in week two of reception when the applicant complained of Bell Palsy exacerbation. The applicant indicated the applicant should not continue with service in the Army because of increase stress and concerns of Bell Palsy worsening. The applicant disclosed the condition upon entry into the service. (3) Date Applicant Reviewed and Concurred with the Findings, and Requested Discharge without Delay: 16 October 2013 (4) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 October 2013 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 September 2013 / 3 years, 20 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / 1 Year College / 89 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 1 month, 8 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: EPSBD findings as described in previous paragraph 3c. Medical Prescreen of Medical History Report, dated 17 June 2013, reflects the applicant reported having Bell Palsy. The document was endorsed by the applicant and the recruiting representative. Report of Medical History dated 26 June 2013, the applicant reported having Bell Palsy since 2007 and the examining medical physician noted the condition in the comments section. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; and Request Pertaining to Military Records. 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 that 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. (6) Paragraph 5-10 (previously paragraph 5-11) specifically provides that Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards, when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty or active duty training or initial entry training will be separated. A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within six months of the Soldier’s initial entrance on active duty, that the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the Soldier for entry into the military service had it been detected at that time, and the medical condition does not disqualify the Soldier from retention in the service under the provisions of AR 40-501, Chapter 3. (7) Glossary prescribes 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), in effect at the time, provided 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 “JFW” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-11, Failed Medical/ Physical/ Procurement 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-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 an upgrade to honorable, a narrative reason change, and a reentry eligibility code change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The proceedings of the EPSBD revealed the applicant had a medical condition, which was disqualifying for enlistment and existed prior to entry on active duty. These findings were approved by competent medical authority and the applicant agreed with the findings and proposed action for administrative separation from the Army. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions, at the time, of Chapter 5-11, AR 635-200, with an uncharacterized discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Failed Medical/Physical/Procurement Standards,” and the separation code is “JFW.” 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 requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. 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 being informed by a recruiter the applicant could not reenlist because the applicant did not disclose the applicant’s medical condition. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the applicant underwent an entrance medical examination on 26 June 2013 and reported having Bell Palsy since 2007. The applicant underwent EPSBD Proceedings on 8 Oct 2013, which reflect the applicant disclosed the condition upon entry into service, but after two weeks of service, the applicant complained of Bell Palsy exacerbation. 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? No. The Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found no mitigating BH diagnoses on the applicant. The applicant provided no documents or testimony of a condition or experience, that, when applying liberal consideration, could have excused, or mitigated a discharge. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? N/A (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 requests an upgrade to honorable, a narrative reason change, and a reentry eligibility code change. The Board considered this contention and determined that a change to the applicant’s current characterization of service, narrative reason and reentry eligibility code change is not warranted at this time because there were no mitigating factors for the Board to consider and the applicant’s discharge did not result from misconduct, rather, the discharge was based on the EPSBD finding that the applicant had Bell Palsy a medical condition, before entering the Army, which is a disqualifying factor for entrance into the military. Therefore, the applicant’s discharge cannot be mitigated based on applicant’s medical conditions. (2) The applicant contends being informed by a recruiter the applicant could not reenlist because the applicant did not disclose the applicant’s medical condition. The Board considered this contention and found in the applicant AMHRR that the applicant underwent an EPSBD Proceedings on 8 Oct 2013, which reflect the applicant disclosed the condition upon entry into service, but after two weeks of service, the applicant complained of Bell Palsy exacerbation when the applicant was in a basic training entry-level status. Therefore, the applicant’s discharge cannot be mitigated based on applicant’s medical conditions. 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, there were no mitigating factors for the Board to consider. On 8 October 2013, EPSBD convened and determined that the applicant was medically unfit for enlistment according to current medical fitness standards and that in the opinion of the evaluating physicians the applicant medical condition existed prior to service. The medical evaluation determined that the applicant had Bell Palsy and was not fit for duty. (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 AR20210006889 1