IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 December 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170002934 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 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: 14 December 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170002934 BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :RCJ :DRA :DT DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 December 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170002934 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 Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) (ASA M&RA) submits an application on behalf of a group of Soldiers requesting that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR): a. consider whether a potential violation of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1177 (Members diagnosed with or reasonably asserting post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI): medical examination required before administrative separation) occurred during these Soldiers' separation processing; and b. determine whether a diagnosis of PTSD and/or TBI should result in an upgrade of these Soldiers' characterizations of service. 2. The group application states the ASA M&RA was unable to confirm that these Soldiers' PTSD and TBI diagnoses were considered by the separation authority during separation processing. 3. The ASA M&RA provides an attached list of Soldiers who may have been affected by a potential violation of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1177. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 November 2008. He held military occupational specialty (MOS) 92G (Food Service Operations). 2. A review of his record shows he served in the Republic of Iraq from 20 July 2009 through 16 July 2010. 3. On 8 September 2011, a U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) Special Agent prepared a final CID Report of Investigation (ROI). It shows: a. An investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offenses of wrongful possession and distribution of a controlled substance when he sold 15.488 grams of K2 (of the 17 grams he possessed), containing the Schedule I controlled substance JWH-018 (a synthetic cannabinoid), to a CID Source for $60.00 in pre-recorded CID funds. b. The Trial Counsel, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), opined that probable cause existed to believe the applicant committed the offenses of wrongful possession and distribution of a controlled substance. 4. A Standard Form 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care) from the Psychiatry Clinic at Fort Riley, KS, indicates the applicant underwent a mental status exam on or about 29 December 2011. This examination found that his insight and judgement were good, thought content and processes were logical, and he suffered no delusions or obsessions. In addition, it noted no perceptual distortions. The applicant's SF 600 does not address his suitability for any administrative actions deemed necessary by his chain of command. 5. The applicant's immediate commander notified him, on or about 2 April 2012, of his intent to initiate separation actions against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12c (2), for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs. As his rationale for this action, the commander citied the applicant's wrongful distribution of 17 grams of JWH-018. The commander indicated he was recommending the applicant receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and advised him of his rights. The applicant refused to acknowledge receipt of the notification memorandum. 6. The applicant consulted with legal counsel on 17 April 2012. He was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effects of such a separation, the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights. He completed his election of rights, wherein he acknowledged his right to: * waive consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a general discharge * waive personal appearance before an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a general discharge * not submit any statements on his own behalf * request consulting counsel and representation by military counsel and/or civilian counsel at own expense 7. The separation authority denied the applicant's request for a conditional waiver on 21 May 2012. He appointed an administrative separation board to determine the appropriate disposition of the applicant’s elimination under the appropriate provisions of Army Regulation 635-200. 8. A DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers) indicates an administrative separation board convened at Fort Riley, KS, on 13 June 2012, to determine if the applicant should be discharged from military service prior to his expiration of term of service (ETS) date. After considering all of the evidence before it, the administrative separation board, by unanimous vote, found sufficient evidence to support the allegations that the applicant wrongfully distributed 17 grams of JWH-018 and recommended he be discharged from the Army with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service discharge. 9. The administrative law attorney from the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, on 2 July 2012, provided a legal review of the administrative board proceedings. He stated the evidence supported the findings of the board and noted that the recommendation of the board was supported and legally sufficient. 10. The separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board and directed that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c (2), by reason of misconduct - abuse of illegal drugs, with the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He also directed the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and that he not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve. 11. The applicant was discharged on 23 July 2012. His DD Form 214 (Certificate or Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c (2), by reason of misconduct (drug abuse). His DD Form 214 further shows he received an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service; his rank at the time of separation was private; and he completed 3 years, 8 months, and 5 days of net active service. 12. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. The ADRB denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge through a personal appearance on 17 January 2013. He subsequently applied to the ABCMR for an upgrade of his discharge; however, the ABCMR denied his request on 21 October 2014. 13. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained on 21 March 2017 from the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Staff Psychiatrist, who opined based on the following questions: a. The requested medical advisory opinion review of this case for: Medical condition(s) not considered during medical separation processing. Specifically, (1) Does available record reasonably support PTSD, or another boardable behavioral health condition, existed at the time of the applicant's military service? (2) Did these conditions fail medical standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), warranting a separation through medical channels? (3) Is this condition(s) a mitigating factor in the misconduct that resulted in the applicant's discharge from the military? (4) In accordance with Title 10, Section 1177, was the required medical exam, which includes a behavioral health component, conducted prior to administrative separation? (5) Any additional information deemed appropriate. b. The applicant enlisted in the Army on 19 November 2008 in MOS 92G. He was deployed to Iraq from 20 July 2009 to 16 July 2010. On 23 July 2012, he was separated from the Army with an under other than honorable conditions discharge in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (drug abuse). His misconduct consisted of wrongfully distributing 17 grams of JWH-018 (i.e., a synthetic cannabinoid). He is now applying to the ABCMR for discharge relief as part of a group application for the correction of military records contending that his misconduct was caused by PTSD and/or TBI. c. Documentation reviewed included the applicant's ABCMR application, the applicant's military separation paperwork, the military electronic medical record (AHLTA) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic medical record (JLV). d. Review of the applicant's electronic military record indicates that he was followed by Psychiatry, Psychology, Social Work and the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) during his military career. Review of his medical records is notable for the following encounters: (1) On 22 October 2012, he presented to Social Work Services with complaints of insomnia, depressed mood, decreased energy, nightmares, impaired concentration, panic symptoms and increased anger. He was diagnosed with anxiety disorder (not otherwise specified (NOS)). (2) On 24 November 2010, he presented to Psychiatry. He reported having been in a mortar attack while in Iraq and feeling like he could die at any time. He endorsed symptoms of increased anxiety, intrusive thoughts, night sweats, bad dreams and poor sleep. He was diagnosed with PTSD. He carried the diagnosis of PTSD until 28 January 2011 at which time the psychiatrist changed his diagnosis to generalized anxiety disorder and documented: "[Applicant] has elements of PTSD. He admits to having an anxiety disorder prior to joining the military." On 29 March 2011, the psychiatrist documents, "He has not expressed a 4 range of PTSD symptoms. Will consider proceeding to a medical board for discharge for generalized anxiety." On 3 May 2011, the psychiatrist documents, "[The applicant] was deployed to Iraq and worked as a cook. He was not engaged in combat. Service member denied symptoms of PTSD. He is being treated for generalized anxiety disorder which appeared to be present prior to his joining the military." On 8 June 2011, the psychiatrist documents, "Patient stated he was declined by the warrior transitional unit as they have observed that his anxiety disorder predated his joining the military ... He has had one deployment to Iraq. He was not involved in combat. He denies symptoms of PTSD ..." (3) On 30 August 2011, the applicant was seen by Social Work Services in follow up. At this time, they documented that the applicant was doing better with improved sleep, decreased anxiety and improved job satisfaction due to having a new job. (4) On 19 September 2011, the applicant was seen for an ASAP evaluation after being charged with distributing K2. No psychiatric diagnosis was given. (5) On 22 September 2011, the applicant was command referred for a mental status evaluation for a chapter separation. He demonstrated a normal mental status exam. He was found to meet military retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 and was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. No psychiatric diagnosis was given. (6) On 28 September 2011, the applicant was seen by Psychiatry in follow up. The psychiatrist documents that the applicant had not been picking up his medication refills and had been off of his medications for more than a month. The applicant inquired about the expiration date of his profile during this visit. On 16 November 2011, he presented to Psychiatry complaining of depression and requesting a permanent profile. The examining psychiatrist noted on 21 November 2011 that the applicant had not yet started his medications. He again asked about his profile. On 19 December 2011, he presented to Psychiatry requesting his profile, stating that he was feeling depressed with decreased motivation and interest, increased anxiety, decreased interest in activities and decreased sleep. His examining psychiatrist contacted his commander regarding his symptoms. His commander reported that the applicant was showing up on time and functioning well at his new job. The applicant was taken off of his temporary profile by his psychiatrist and informed he would not be receiving a permanent profile because of his improved functioning. (7) On 29 December 2011, the applicant once again presented to Psychiatry asking for a profile. The applicant continued to complain about being depressed and "not better.'' The examining psychiatrist noted that the applicant was "very well groomed in ACUs and although pleasant in manner, he is very determined to get his way ... " In her assessment, the psychiatrist notes "Although SM is saying he is more and more depressed, he does not demonstrate or verbalize symptoms of severe depression…He is debating with me about meeting [sic-needing] a profile that he is more depressed than I believe he is...We are going to treat him with appropriate medications and increasing doses when needed ... He will return in 4-6 weeks. Not given a profile and does not need a profile." (8) On 8 February 2012, the applicant presented with complaints his medications were not working. His Zoloft was discontinued and he was started on Prozac. On 29 March 2012, he reported that these medications were not working. They were stopped and he was started on Effexor. On 16 April 2012, his diagnosis was noted to be major depressive disorder, single episode. On 26 April 2012, he reported that his medications were helping "a little" and he asked about his profile. On 18 May 2012, he once again reported that his medications were not helping. The Effexor was stopped and he was started on citalopram. (9) On 12 April 2012, he was seen by a Social Work Services trainee. He screened positive for PTSD (4/4) and TBI (3/10). He was advised to continue treatment with his psychiatrist and psychologist. (Of note, neither of these providers felt the applicant had PTSD or TBI. Additionally, the applicant had no reported history of head injury.) (10) At the time of discharge from the Army, the applicant's psychiatric diagnosis was major depressive disorder, single episode. e. Review of the electronic VA medical record (JLV) indicates that the applicant has been rated as 80% service connected, 50% of which is for anxiety disorder. f. In regard to the questions outlined in paragraph a above: (1) The applicant's military medical records DO NOT support a PTSD diagnosis at the time of discharge. The applicant's military medical records also DO NOT support a TBI diagnosis at the time of discharge. Review of the military medical record supports a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder, single episode at the time of discharge. (2) The applicant's medical records indicate that the applicant met medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 and separation through military medical channels was not indicated. (3) The applicant's diagnoses of generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder do not mitigate his misconduct. (4) The applicant did undergo the required medical examination and behavioral health examination prior to his discharge as required by Title 10, Section 1177. 14. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on or about 22 March 2107, to allow him an opportunity to comment and/or submit a rebuttal. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1177, states: a. Medical Examination Required: (1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department shall ensure that a member of the armed forces under the jurisdiction of the Secretary who has been deployed overseas in support of a contingency operation, or sexually assaulted, during the previous 24 months, and who is diagnosed by a physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, licensed clinical social worker, or psychiatric advanced practice registered nurse as experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury or who otherwise reasonably alleges, based on the service of the member while deployed, or based on such sexual assault, the influence of such a condition, receives a medical examination to evaluate a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury. (2) A member covered by paragraph (1) shall not be administratively separated under conditions other than honorable, including an administrative separation in lieu of court-martial, until the results of the medical examination have been reviewed by appropriate authorities responsible for evaluating, reviewing, and approving the separation case, as determined by the Secretary concerned. (3) In a case involving post-traumatic stress disorder, the medical examination shall be performed by a clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, licensed clinical social worker, or psychiatric advanced practice registered nurse. In cases involving traumatic brain injury, the medical examination may be performed by a physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or other health care professional, as appropriate. b. Purpose of Medical Examination. The medical examination required by subsection (a) shall assess whether the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury constitute matters in extenuation that relate to the basis for administrative separation under conditions other than honorable or the overall characterization of service of the member as other than honorable. c. Inapplicability to Proceedings Under Uniform Code of Military Justice. The medical examination and procedures required by this section do not apply to courts-martial or other proceedings conducted pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member'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. b. Paragraph  3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Paragraph 3-7c states a discharge under other than honorable conditions is based on an administrative separation from the service, and may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial. When a Soldier is to be discharged under other than honorable conditions, the separation authority will direct an immediate reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. d. Chapter 14 of this regulation establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense (to include abuse of illegal drugs), conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absences without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. 3. PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and it provides standard criteria and common language for the classification of mental disorders. In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM-III nosologic classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. From an historical perspective, the significant change ushered in by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the etiological agent was outside the individual (i.e., a traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual weakness (i.e., a traumatic neurosis). The key to understanding the scientific basis and clinical expression of PTSD is the concept of "trauma." 4. PTSD is unique among psychiatric diagnoses because of the great importance placed upon the etiological agent, the traumatic stressor. In fact, one cannot make a PTSD diagnosis unless the patient has actually met the "stressor criterion," which means that he or she has been exposed to an event that is considered traumatic. Clinical experience with the PTSD diagnosis has shown, however, that there are individual differences regarding the capacity to cope with catastrophic stress. Therefore, while most people exposed to traumatic events do not develop PTSD, others go on to develop the full-blown syndrome. Such observations have prompted the recognition that trauma, like pain, is not an external phenomenon that can be completely objectified. Like pain, the traumatic experience is filtered through cognitive and emotional processes before it can be appraised as an extreme threat. Because of individual differences in this appraisal process, different people appear to have different trauma thresholds, some more protected from and some more vulnerable to developing clinical symptoms after exposure to extremely stressful situations. 5. The DSM fifth revision (DSM-5) was released in May 2013. This revision includes changes to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and Acute Stress Disorder. The PTSD diagnostic criteria were revised to take into account things that have been learned from scientific research and clinical experience. The revised diagnostic criteria for PTSD include a history of exposure to a traumatic event that meets specific stipulations and symptoms from each of four symptom clusters: intrusion, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and alterations in arousal and reactivity. The sixth criterion concerns duration of symptoms; the seventh assesses functioning; and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition. a. Criterion A, stressor: The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence, as follows: (one required) (1) Direct exposure. (2) Witnessing, in person. (3) Indirectly, by learning that a close relative or close friend was exposed to trauma. If the event involved actual or threatened death, it must have been violent or accidental. (4) Repeated or extreme indirect exposure to aversive details of the event(s), usually in the course of professional duties (e.g., first responders, collecting body parts; professionals repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). This does not include indirect non-professional exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures. b. Criterion B, intrusion symptoms: The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in the following way(s): (one required) (1) Recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive memories. (2) Traumatic nightmares. (3) Dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks) which may occur on a continuum from brief episodes to complete loss of consciousness. (4) Intense or prolonged distress after exposure to traumatic reminders. (5) Marked physiologic reactivity after exposure to trauma-related stimuli. c. Criterion C, avoidance: Persistent effortful avoidance of distressing trauma-related stimuli after the event: (one required) (1) Trauma-related thoughts or feelings. (2) Trauma-related external reminders (e.g., people, places, conversations, activities, objects, or situations). d. Criterion D, negative alterations in cognitions and mood: Negative alterations in cognitions and mood that began or worsened after the traumatic event: (two required) (1) Inability to recall key features of the traumatic event (usually dissociative amnesia; not due to head injury, alcohol, or drugs). (2) Persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs and expectations about oneself or the world (e.g., "I am bad," "The world is completely dangerous"). (3) Persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event or for resulting consequences. (4) Persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame). (5) Markedly diminished interest in (pre-traumatic) significant activities. Feeling alienated from others (e.g., detachment or estrangement). (6) Constricted affect: persistent inability to experience positive emotions. e. Criterion E, alterations in arousal and reactivity: Trauma-related alterations in arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the traumatic event: (two required) (1) Irritable or aggressive behavior (2) Self-destructive or reckless behavior (3) Hypervigilance (4) Exaggerated startle response (5) Problems in concentration (6) Sleep disturbance f. Criterion F, duration: Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than one month. g. Criterion G, functional significance: Significant symptom-related distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational). h. Criterion H, exclusion: Disturbance is not due to medication, substance use, or other illness. 6. As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis and treatment of PTSD the Department of Defense (DoD) acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge. It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge. Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time. 7. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have 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. 8. BCM/NRs are not courts, nor are they investigative agencies. Therefore, the determinations will be based upon a thorough review of the available military records and the evidence provided by each applicant on a case-by-case basis. When determining if PTSD was the causative factor for an applicant's misconduct and whether an upgrade is warranted, the following factors must be carefully considered: * Is it reasonable to determine that PTSD or PTSD-related conditions existed at the time of discharge? * Does the applicant's record contain documentation of the occurrence of a traumatic event during the period of service? * Does the applicant's military record contain documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms? * Did the applicant provide documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms rendered by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider? * Was the applicant's condition determined to have existed prior to military service? * Was the applicant's condition determined to be incurred during or aggravated by military service? * Do mitigating factors exist in the applicant's case? * Did the applicant have a history of misconduct prior to the occurrence of the traumatic event? * Was the applicant's misconduct premeditated? * How serious was the misconduct? 9. Although the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time. a. Conditions documented in the 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 PTSD or PTSD-related conditions 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 UOTHC characterization of service. b. Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of UOTHC. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor 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. c. Correction Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 10. The acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided clarifying guidance on 25 August 2017, which expanded the 2014 Secretary of Defense memorandum, that directed the BCM/NRs and DRBs to give liberal consideration to veterans looking to upgrade their less-than-honorable discharges by expanding review of discharges involving diagnosed, undiagnosed, or misdiagnosed mental health conditions, including PTSD; traumatic brain injury; or who reported sexual assault or sexual harassment. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's record shows he was the subject of a CID investigation that established probable cause to believe he committed the offenses of wrongful possession and distribution of illegal drugs. Subsequently, his chain of command initiated separation actions against him. 2. After being denied a conditional waiver contingent upon a general discharge, the separation authority directed that the applicant's case be referred for consideration by an administrative separation board. The board, by unanimous vote, found sufficient evidence to support the allegations against him and recommended he be discharged from the Army with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The separation authority approved the recommendation. 3. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. The evidence of record shows he consulted with counsel and he was advised of the basis for the separation action. His rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 4. Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible re-characterization of their overall service. 5. The ARBA Clinical Psychiatrist after a review of his available medical records found: * available records did show a medical examination and behavioral health examination were both conducted prior to separation that fulfilled the requirements of Title 10, Section 1177 * the records do not support a PTSD diagnosis or a TBI diagnosis at the time of his discharge; he was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder, single episode at discharge * his medical records indicate that the applicant met medical retention standards and separation through medical channels were not warranted * his diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder, single episode did not mitigate his misconduct //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170000771 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170002934 15 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2