1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 2 January 2021 b. Date Received: 12 January 2021 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, having been diagnosed with anxiety after suffering an ankle injury while in the National Guard, the applicant was given an uncharacterized discharge because of not serving in the VAARNG for two years. The applicant developed anxiety while in the military. The applicant is receiving treatment at the Veterans Administration for the service-connected medical condition. After a year, the applicant received a letter from MEPS stating the applicant was not approved for entry into the Armed Forces due to a history of anxiety with treatment. The applicant feels the NCOs in the chain of command looked for the easiest way for separation instead of trying to help. The applicant believes the discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The narrative reason should highlight separation was due to a disability. The applicant contacted the Adjutant General of Virginia and the wording of the NGB Form 22 was changed, but the characterization of the discharge was not amended. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 17 March 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: Failure to Meet Medical Procurement Standards / NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-35c(5)(a) / NA / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 20 May 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) convened: NIF (2) EPSBD Findings: NIF (3) Date Applicant Reviewed and Concurred with the Findings, and Requested Discharge without Delay: NIF (4) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 March 2013 / 8-year MSO, ARNGUS b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / Bachelor of Science Degree / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / None / 1 year, 1 month, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 26 March 2013 – 18 June 2013 / NA IADT, 19 June 2013 – 30 August 2013 / NIF ARNG, 31 August 2013 – (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF The applicant provided the following: The Adjutant General of the Virginia Army National Guard (VAARNG) letter, dated 21 January 2021, reflects, in response to the applicant’s inquiry concerning changes to the discharge by changing the reason for discharge to “disability” and characterization to Honorable, a review by the VAARNG Deputy State Surgeon found no medical records of anxiety and ankle injury medical conditions received during the military service, and no record of the applicant completing either the Officer Candidate School (OCS) or the Advanced Individual Training (AIT). Medical Record (Patient First in Richmond, VA), dated 26 November 2013, reflects the applicant was treated for an ankle injury. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF Applicant provided the following: A copy of memorandum, dated 14 April 2014, rendered by the Assistant Chief Medical Officer, Fort Lee Military Entrance Processing Station, Subject: Medically Disqualified, which reflects the applicant was found medically disqualified for entry in the Armed Forces of the United States for history of “Anxiety with Treatment.” A Developmental Counseling Form, dated 15 May 2014, reflecting the applicant was counseled for being discharged from the Virginia Army National Guard for medical issue, and the applicant agreed with the information provided in the counseling session. Medical Record (Patient First in Richmond, VA), dated 19 February 2014, reflects the applicant was seen for symptoms of decreased motivation and difficulty with adjusting after returning from basic training, which had started six months prior and was drinking excessively, which started after attending basic training. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Memorandum (Request for Discharge); VA Summary of Benefits letter; Letter to MG T. P. W., dated 3 November 2020; NGB Form 22A; Certificate (Completion of BCT); VAARNG letter (The Adjutant General), dated 19 December 2014; and résumé. Additional Evidence: Cover letter; ARBA email correspondence; VAARNG letter (The Adjutant General), dated 21 January 2021; DA Form 4856; memorandum (Medical Disqualified); memorandum (Request for Discharge); Drill Dates notification; Medical Record, dated 26 November 2013; and Medical Record, dated 19 February 2014. 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 135-178 prescribes the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. (1) Paragraph 2-9a prescribes an honorable characterization 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. (2) Paragraph 2-9b, prescribes, if a Soldier’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as general (under honorable conditions). Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of the Soldier’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the Soldier’s military record. (3) Paragraph 2-11a, Service will be described as uncharacterized if separation processing is initiated while a Soldier is in an entry level status. (4) Chapter 6 prescribes the reasons a Soldier may be separated for the convenience of the Government. (5) Paragraph 6-6 states a discharge will be accomplished on determination that a Soldier was not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on IADT. A Soldier found to be not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards will be discharged on the earliest practical date following such determination and prior to entry on IADT. (6) Paragraph 6-8 prescribes the service of a Soldier separated under this chapter will be characterized as honorable, unless an uncharacterized description of service is required by paragraph 2-11, or a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) is warranted under chapter 2, section III. (7) Glossary states upon enlistment, a Soldier qualifies for entry level status during: The first 180 days of continuous active military service or the first 180 days of continuous active service after a service break of more than 92 days of active service. A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty or who is serving under a call or order to active duty for 180 days or less begins entry level status upon enlistment in a reserve component. Entry level status for such a member of a reserve component terminates as follows: 180 days after beginning training if the Soldier is ordered to ADT for one continuous period of 180 days or more; or, 90 days after the beginning of the second period of ADT if the Soldier is ordered to ADT under a program that splits the training into two or more separate periods of active duty. For the purposes of characterization of service, the Soldier’s status is determined by the date of notification as to the initiation of separation proceedings. e. National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, establishes standards, policies, and procedures for the management of the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) enlisted Soldiers in the functional areas of: Classification and Reclassification; Personnel Management; Assignment and Transfer, including interstate transfer; Special Duty Assignment Pay; Enlisted Separations; and Command Sergeant Major Program. (1) Chapter 6 sets the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted Soldiers from the ARNG/ARNGUS. (2) Paragraph 6-8a, prescribes an honorable characterization 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 6-35c(5)(a), provides for separation of enlisted Soldiers who are not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards. Including Soldiers who fail to meet medical procurement standards of AR 40-501, chapter 2 prior to entry on IET including positive urinalysis and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in entrance physicals: RE 3, or RE 4 for HIV; LC: MK. 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army National Guard. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), which was not authenticated with the applicant’s signature and NGB Form 22A (Correction to NGB Form 22). The NGB Form 22, corrected by NGB Form 22A, indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-35c(5)(a), by reason of failure to meet procurement standards of AR 40-501, with a characterization of service of uncharacterized. The applicant contends the discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The available AMHRR confirms the applicant was in an entry level status (ELS) at the time of the separation. The purpose of the entry-level status is to provide the Soldier a probationary period. Army Regulation 135-178 also provides, except in cases of serious misconduct, that a Soldier’s service will be uncharacterized when separation is initiated while in entry level status. A general (under honorable conditions) discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions, and an honorable discharge may be granted only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. The applicant’s available service record contains no such unusual circumstances. The Adjutant General’s letter, dated 19 December 2014, states the applicant’s characterization of service was correctly classified as uncharacterized and cannot be changed because the applicant was in an entry level status the duration of the service and the applicant did not complete the Advanced Individual Training (AIT) requirements. Because the applicant did not complete the AIT to receive a duty MOS qualification prior to the discharge, the applicant cannot be considered a full participant in Army the National Guard. The Adjutant General’s letter, dated 21 January 2021, confirms there was no record of the applicant completing either the Officer Candidate School (OCS) or AIT, but had completed the Basic Combat Training (BCT). The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 6-35c(5)(a), NGR 600-200, with an uncharacterized discharge. The narrative reason specified by NGR 600-200, for a discharge under this paragraph is “Failed to Meet Medical Procurement Standards.” Governing regulations stipulate no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends being diagnosed with anxiety and being treated by the VA for the service-connected medical condition. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating treatment for anxiety; however, the VA summary of benefits letter does not identify the service-connected disabilities. The applicant contends receiving a letter from MEPS stating not be approved for entry into the Armed Forces because of a history of anxiety with treatment and feels the NCOs in the chain of command looked for an easy way to separate the applicant instead of trying to help. The applicant’s available AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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; Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD). (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found diagnosis of Adjustment DO was made while in service. Applicant is also, VA service connected (30%) for GAD establishes its existence during active duty. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s Uncharacterized discharge was proper and equitable. As per Paragraph 2-27k of 40-501, current or history of anxiety disorders do not meet the physical standards for enlistment, appointment or induction into the Armed Forces. (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 OBH did not outweighed the basis for separation - failure to meet medical procurement standards. Thus, the discharge was proper and equitable. See paragraph 9.a.3 the condition was the reason for the Discharge and the applicant was in Entry Level Status. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant was in an Entry Level Status (ELS) when separated and Uncharacterized is the directed characterization when administratively separated in this status. IAW with AR 135-178 Entry level status for such a member of a reserve component terminates as follows: 90 days after the beginning of the second period of ADT if the Soldier is ordered to ADT under a program that splits the training into two or more separate periods of active duty. Service will be described as uncharacterized if separation processing is initiated while a Soldier is in an entry level status. The characterization of service is correctly classified as uncharacterized because the applicant was in an entry level status the duration of the service and the applicant did not complete the Advanced Individual Training (AIT) requirements. Because the applicant did not complete the AIT to receive a duty MOS qualification prior to the discharge, the applicant was in Entry Level Status for which the characterization is directed to be Uncharacterized except an honorable discharge may be granted only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. (2) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention but determined that the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 6-35c(5)(a), NGR 600-200, with an uncharacterized discharge. The narrative reason specified by NGR 600-200, for a discharge under this paragraph is “Failed to Meet Medical Procurement Standards.” Governing regulations stipulate no deviation is authorized. Therefore, there is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. (3) The applicant contends being diagnosed with anxiety and being treated by the VA for the service-connected medical condition. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member’s discharge characterization. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the available evidence concluded that the applicant’s diagnosed anxiety is not mitigating for the discharge - Failure to Meet Medical Procurement Standards – for the aforementioned reason(s). (4) The applicant contends receiving a letter from MEPS stating not be approved for entry into the Armed Forces because of a history of anxiety with treatment and feels the NCOs in the chain of command looked for an easy way to separate the applicant instead of trying to help. The Board considered this contention but determined the applicant’s record contains no evidence of arbitrary actions by the chain of command and 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. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of 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, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder or GAD did not excuse or mitigate the discharge, as the applicant was separated while in Entry Level Status and the proper Characterization is Uncharacterized. 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge 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 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 AR20210011216 1