IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000946 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ____x___ ___x_____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000946 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records set forth in Docket Number AR20080008459 on 19 August 2008. ____________x_____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000946 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states: a. His discharge was improper because the sole reason for separation was one isolated incident during his 22 months of meritorious service. Drug treatment was never considered as being a potential option instead of permanent separation from active duty service. The lack of access to substance abuse treatment resulted in his increased usage of drugs upon separation from the service. Rehabilitation was never offered during his enlistment and drug usage persisted in his civilian life until he received outside (help for) post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and relapse prevention treatment once he returned home. b. Due to the nature of his discharge, he was disqualified for many Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. This was explained in detail during his out-processing. However, due to confusion of his discharge by the VA hospital in Detroit, MI, he was unable to receive his 2 to 5 years of free healthcare for serving in Iraq. This was problematic because the free healthcare would have granted him access to various VA substance abuse and mental health services and programs for indigent individuals. c. Due to the nature of his discharge, he was also disqualified for the Montgomery GI Bill benefit. While the service refused to pay for his schooling, they could have at least offered to reimburse the $1,200 buy-in or provided the benefit to a family member if the discharge was upgraded. Nonetheless, he obtained two degrees. 3. The applicant provides his: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) * previously submitted DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States) * Army Commendation Medal certificate * Soldier Deployment History Out-Processing Report * VA Progress Notes and Consult Reports, dated in 2007 * post-service counseling letters * Bachelor and Master of Social Work diplomas * Master's Social Worker Limited License * two achievement certificates CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABMCR) in Docket Number AR20080008459 on 19 August 2008. 2. Based on the applicant's claim that he has PTSD, his application is being reviewed under the 2014 Secretary of Defense's guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military Records (BCMR)/Naval Records (NR). 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 August 2003 and he held military occupational specialty 92G (Food Service Specialist). He was promoted to E-3 on 12 June 2004. He served in Iraq from 9 February to 7 July 2004. 4. On 8 April 2005, he was referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for an incident involving marijuana and methamphetamine. 5. On 13 April 2005, he received counseling for testing positive for marijuana and methamphetamine use and possible initiation of separation action. 6. On 21 April 2005, he underwent a mental status evaluation. The examining psychiatrist found no psychiatric conditions or symptoms that would impair the applicant's ability to participate in separation proceedings. He recommended the applicant be processed for expeditious administrative separation in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12c. 7. On 17 May 2005, the company commander notified the applicant of his intent to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for commission of a serious offense, by reason of a positive urinalysis for marijuana. The applicant was advised of his rights. 8. On 21 June 2005, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged the proposed separation action. He also acknowledged he could receive a general discharge and the results of the issuance of such a discharge. He waived his rights and elected not submit a statement in his own behalf. 9. In June 2005, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge. 10. He was discharged accordingly, in pay grade E-2, on 12 July 2005. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 10 months, and 14 days of active service and 16 days of time lost. His service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general). 11. On 14 March 2007, he was issued a DD Form 215 adding the Army Commendation Medal and his service in Iraq to his DD Form 214. 12. On 28 January 2008, the Army Discharge Review Board determined his discharge was both proper and equitable and denied his petition for an upgrade. 13. On 21 August 2008, the ABCMR denied his petition for an upgrade of his discharge. 14. He provided: * four post-service counseling letters, dated 15 August and 12 October 2007, 29 January 2008, and 20 April 2008, stating he had received services from the Michigan Veterans Foundation Center for relapse prevention, undiagnosed PTSD, and other drug abuse * 2007 VA Progress Notes and a Consult Report stating he was diagnosed with alcohol, heroin dependence, and cocaine dependence; it was noted he failed to attend any groups or individual sessions * 2011 and 2015 Bachelor and Master of Social Work diplomas * Master's Social Worker Limited License with an expiration date of 30 April 2017 * two achievement certificates 15. On 7 February 2016, an advisory opinion was provided by the Clinical Psychologist, Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA). The ARBA psychologist referenced the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), 5th Edition; AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), dated 4 August 2011; and AR 635-200, dated 6 September 2011. The ARBA psychologist reiterated the applicant's period of active service and Iraq deployment and stated: a. The Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application records indicated one mental-health visit prior to his discharge. During that visit he was diagnosed with alcohol abuse, alcohol-induced mood disorders, and methamphetamine abuse. His records show his command made the appropriate mandatory ASAP referral after his positive during urinalysis (testing). His enlistment papers as of 24 May 2003 also showed minor drug use as a teen. He admitted to recreational use as a civilian. He had a juvenile sentence for tobacco possession on 21 January 1999 and a probation violation on 20 August 1999. b. The applicant's pre-discharge mental status examination of 31 August 2005 assigned him a drug abuse diagnosis of Axis I and deferred diagnosis on Axis II, an axis used to code personality disorders. His 2007 VA problem list stated he had alcohol, cocaine, and opioid dependence and depression as active problems. The documentation he submitted does not include an ordinary intake evaluation by a licensed professional that established a PTSD diagnosis. c. The applicant also appears to have had a good level functioning over the past several years, as he has attained a Masters of Social Work degree and has a limited license to practice as a social worker, though he provided a letter indicating that after a 6-year hiatus in treatment, he was again experiencing "PTSD symptoms" and wished to resume individual and group therapy. d. The applicant's military medical records did not demonstrate that he had a boardable medical condition during his period of service and he met the standards in AR40-501 and AR 635-40. The available case material did not show the existence of a relevant diagnosable mental-disorder at the time of discharge. e. It was also impossible to find in the records he submitted any statements such as "he was first diagnosed by a licensed mental-health provider with PTSD on such and such a date and met these criteria for the disorder with an onset of symptoms on such and such a date." His interest in drugs, indicated by recreational use, pre-dated his deployment. He had the mental capacity to understand his discharge, indicating the impact of a general discharge on his benefits, when he signed his separation documents. f. A review of available documentation did not discover evidence of mental-health considerations that could be relevant to his misconduct. There was no causal nexus between his misconduct and a behavioral health condition, other than those related to his substance use disorders, which was discovered. 16. The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant on 8 February 2017 for acknowledgement/rebuttal. In his response, dated 28 February 2017, he stated: a. Considering there were no diagnosed substance use issues before military service, only during and after, a person could find it difficult not to see the correlation of combat service to escalate use and dependence based upon exposure to traumatic events experienced during deployment. Moreover, self-report of personal history is not necessarily fact, and in this case, he failed to see a documented treatment history prior to military service, again only during and after. b. It appeared to him the facts of the medical advisor report was to establish a negative pattern of behavior predating his enlistment, when that clearly was not the case. While he experienced some hard times after separation from the service, he managed to succeed. He would like to make note that the medical advisor's remarks on his level of functioning was an insult considering that individual has never met him personally. The fact remains that he voluntarily enlisted during a time of war to serve and die for his country and to keep America free. That alone speaks volumes of his true character. REFERENCES: 1. AR 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation stated in: a. Paragraph 14-12c – Soldier would be a separation for the commission of a serious offense to include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense. Action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impractical or unlikely to succeed. The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate. However, the separation authority could direct a general discharge if such was merited by the member's overall record. b. Paragraph 3-7a – An honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptance conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. 2. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards and Service Board for Correction of Military/NR to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical consideration, and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged and who had been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. In these cases, PTSD was not recognized as a diagnosis at the time of service and, in many cases, diagnoses were not made until decades after the service was completed. Liberal consideration would also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contained narratives that supported symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which could reasonably indicate PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable condition characterization of service. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant committed a serious offense in that he tested positive for marijuana. Accordingly, separation action was initiated against him. He consulted with legal counsel and acknowledged he understood he could receive a general discharge. He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. The separation authority approved his discharge and he was discharged accordingly. 2. His record is void of evidence showing he was ever diagnosed with PTSD or any behavioral health condition during his military service. There is no evidence to show PTSD or any other behavioral health condition prevented satisfactory completion of his enlistment. 3. It appears, his accomplishments, service in Iraq, and good record of service prior to the misconduct were the basis for him receiving a general discharge and being separated in pay grade E-2 instead of an under other than honorable conditions discharge and reduction to pay grade E-1. It also appears the separation authority determined his performance and conduct did not meet acceptable standards for a Soldier receiving an honorable discharge. 4. Current standards provide for liberal consideration in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contained narratives that supported symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which could reasonably indicate PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000946 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000946 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2