1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 September 2020 b. Date Received: 4 September 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, the applicant's commander recommended an honorable discharge, but the separation authority directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant served over three years of active service with no disciplinary actions, negative counseling, or other derogatory data, except the two APFT failures. The applicant was awarded the NDSM and ASR. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 1 November 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. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the 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: Physical Standards / AR 635-200 / Chapter 13-2E / JFT / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 13 August 2020 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 March 2020 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed two consecutive APFTs on 18 July 2019 and 16 October 2019. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: The applicant declined the opportunity to consult with counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 July 2020 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 July 2017 / 3 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 89 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 3 years, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecards show the applicant failed two consecutive APFTs. 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 149, DD Form 293, Attorney Memorandum, DD Form 214, email correspondence, Separation Packet, Enlistment documents, Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag), ERB, excerpt of AR 635-200, excerpt of Code of Federal Regulations. 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 13-2e 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. The service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance for failure to meet physical standards will be characterized as honorable or general (under honorable conditions). 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 contends the applicant's commander recommended an honorable discharge, but the separation authority directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The separation authority is not bound by the recommendations of the initiating or intermediate commander and has complete discretion to direct any discharge and characterization of service authorized by the applicable provisions of the regulation as stated in Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 2-2c. The applicant contends the applicant served over three years of active service with no disciplinary actions, negative counseling, or other derogatory data, except the two APFT failures. The applicant was awarded the NDSM and ASR. The Board will consider the applicant service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. 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 reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found the applicant had no mitigating behavioral health diagnoses. The applicant provided no documents or testimony of an in-service 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 contends the applicant served over three years of active service with no disciplinary actions, negative counseling, or other derogatory data, except the two APFT failures. The applicant was awarded the NDSM and ASR. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service based on the applicant's length of service. (2) The applicant contends the applicant's commander recommended an honorable discharge, but the separation authority directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's length of service. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the 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. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to grant relief by upgrading the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable. Although the Board found the discharge proper and equitable and there were no behavioral health diagnoses which mitigated the misconduct to warrant relief, it was found that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because there were no mitigating factors for the Board to consider. (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: 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 AR20210009732 1