1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 31 January 2021 b. Date Received: 1 March 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 honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was improper and unjust. The applicant had a dead man profile when sent home and did not want to leave. The applicant had a follow up medical appointment setup from being hospitalized prior to getting discharged. The applicant's supervisors medically failed the applicant and denied medical care. The applicant is currently service connected through the Veterans Affairs (VA). b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 09 August 2023, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Major Depressive DO (MDD) and PTSD due to MST. The Board found that the MST outweighed the applicant's entry level performance and conduct separation - failure to meet the minimum APFT standards, lack of motivation, and two counts of assault. The Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. The Board determined the RE code was proper and equitable and voted no change. 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: Entry Level Performance and Conduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 11 / JGA / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 31 August 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 August 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Since the applicant arrived at Fort Lee, Virginia on 29 June 2015 to attend the 92Y course the applicant was unable to obtain a passing score on the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) on 30 July and 6 August 2015. The applicant shown no initiative to pass the APFT and had no desire to become a productive member of the military. It was likely that the circumstances surrounding the basis for this chapter would continue or recur. (3) Recommended Characterization: Uncharacterized (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 25 August 2015, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 August 2015 / Uncharacterized 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 March 2015 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 86 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-1 / None / 5 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 18 August 2015, for assaulting two Soldiers on or about 3 August 2015. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $360.00 pay (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. APFT Scorecards reflects the applicant failed record APFTs on 30 July and 6 August 2015. Developmental Counseling Forms for failing the APFT two times and two counts of assault. DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), dated 11 August 2015, reflects the applicant was flagged for involuntary separation/field initiated (BA), effective 11 August 2015. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 11 August 2015, reflects the applicant was counseled for initiation of separation under AR 635-200, chapter 11 (Entry Level Performance and Conduct) for failure to meet the minimum APFT standard and patterns of misconduct. The applicant disagreed with the counseling and stated that they did not have a discipline problem and could pass the APFT. The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief, dated 1 September 2015, reflects the applicant was flagged for elimination - field initiated (BA), effective 19 May 2015, and for adverse action (AA) effective 4 August 2015; was ineligible for reenlistment due to pending separation (9V). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: VA Summary of Benefits letter, dated 23 September 20121, reflecting the applicant received a 30 percent combined service-connection rating effective 1 December 2020. VA Social Worker letter, dated 1 November 2022, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). (2) AMHRR Listed: None. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 149; VA Summary of Benefits letter; VA Social Worker 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 3-7b 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) 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. (5) Chapter 11 provides for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level status (ELS). (6) Paragraph 11-3a (2) stipulates the policy applies to Soldiers who are in entry-level status, undergoing IET, and, before the date of the initiation of separation action, have completed no more than 180 days of creditable continuous AD or IADT or no more than 90 days of Phase II under a split or alternate training option. (See the glossary for precise definition of entry-level status.) (7) Paragraph 11-8 stipulates service will be described as uncharacterized under the provisions of this chapter. (8) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. (9) 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 "JGA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, entry-level performance, and conduct. 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. An honorable discharge (HD) may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. An HD is rarely ever granted. The applicant contends, in effect, the discharge was improper and unjust. The applicant had a dead man profile when sent home, however, the applicant did not want to leave. The applicant had a follow up medical appointment setup from being hospitalized prior to getting discharged. The applicant did not provide and the AMHRR does not contain the profile. The applicant is currently service-connected through the VA; however, the VA Summary of Benefits letter does not list the medical reason for the service-connection. The applicant contends, in effect, supervisors medically failed the applicant and denied medical care. The applicant contends harassment and discrimination by members of the chain of command. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported ths matter. 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: MDD (100%SC); PTSD due to MST. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found VA medical records that document the applicant's MDD and PTSD are due to MST that existed or occurred during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has two mitigating BH conditions, PTSD and MDD, both due to the mitigating experience of MS. Based on this, the medical advisor recommended that the applicant's discharge be upgraded to HD/SA. Had the applicant not experienced MST while in the Army, she likely would have been able to completer her enlistment honorably. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred (vote of 4-1) with the opinion of the Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant's Major Depressive DO (MDD) and PTSD due to MST outweighed the applicant's entry level performance and conduct - failure to meet the minimum APFT standards, lacking motivation to improve, and assault (two counts). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests an upgrade honorable. The Board considered this contention and determined (4-1 vote) that the applicant's Major Depressive DO (MDD) and PTSD due to MST outweighed the applicant's basis for separation - failure to meet the minimum APFT standard, lacks motivation to improve, and two counts of assault. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, the discharge was improper and unjust. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the information outlined in 9a (3-4) and 9b (1) of this document. Also, the Board found no evidence of the command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (3) The applicant contends, in effect, supervisors medically failed the applicant and denied medical care. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade already granted as mentioned in 9a (1). Also, the found no evidence of the command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. c. The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's Major Depressive DO (MDD) and PTSD due to MST experiences outweighing the applicant's performance and misconduct. The Board voted 4-0 to change the narrative reason to SA (JFF) with no change to the RE-code. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's Major Depressive DO (MDD) and PTSD due to MST experiences outweighing the applicant's performance and misconduct. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JFF. (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: Secretarial Authority / JFF d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 15 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 AR20210011645 1