1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 4 March 2015 b. Date Received: 11 May 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, around May 2013, he and his wife found out they were expecting a child sometime before his upcoming deployment, followed by an unknown number of family and friends losing their lives. All of this took a toll on him. He was young and new to the Army, with no experience living on his own. He tried to be strong for his wife, but at times went to his supervisor and broke down because of all the stress. After losing nine or ten family and friends and after transferring to a new unit, he began confiding in his new supervisor, believing he would get help. He believes she really did not seem to care. He began to lose motivation and reverted to his old ways by smoking weed. When he was given a urinalysis, he tried to explain to his chain of command all of the problems he had explained to his supervisor previously, but his command did not want to listen. When the chapter process began, his unit began treating him like he was nothing. He was unable to go to his baby appointments, he was lied against while he was on extra duty, he was threatened with being placed in jail, his chapter process was sped up and many times he did not know what was going on. He is not asking for sympathy, but rather a second chance. He believes many things that happened to him were unfair and his leaders did not take the time to take care of their Soldier. He understands he made the mistake, but feels if he was asking for help, his leaders should have helped him. He believes everyone deserves a second chance and his goal is to return to active duty and finish his career. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses. Mental Status Exam dated March 2014 indicated No Diagnosis. The applicant met medical retention standards and was psychiatrically cleared. Screened negative for PTSD and TBI. Seen by FAP from 2013-2014 for relational problems, an adjustment disorder, and bereavement in response to personal stressors and the loss of several family members and friends. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 September 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 20 May 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 April 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant wrongfully used marijuana. (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 7 May 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 7 May 2014 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 5 March 2012 / 4 years and 24 weeks b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-3 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 2 years, 2 months, and 16 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: DA Forms 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 27 March 2014, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. FG Article 15, dated 28 March 2014, for wrongfully using marijuana (on or about 21 January 2014 and 25 February 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $765.00 pay; and, extra duty for 45 days. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History (DD Form 2807-1), dated 15 April 2014, reflects the medical examiner noted the applicant had insomnia and adjustment disorder with disturbance conduct. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149, dated 4 March 2015, and a self-authored letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. Paragraph 14-12c(2) terms abuse of illegal drugs as serious misconduct. It continues; however, by recognizing relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct and processed for separation under paragraph 14-12a or 14-12b as appropriate. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members’ discharges. “Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that 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 conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre-existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service.” “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 under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Correction boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service other than honorable conditions. 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. 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.” 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. The applicant contends that he was having family issues that affected his behavior, which ultimately caused him to be discharged. In addition, the applicant contends that when the chapter process began, he was discriminated by members of his chain of command. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. Furthermore, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant contends that he was young and immature at the time of the discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The applicant contends that his leaders did not take the time to take care of him, when he needed them the most. However, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 4. An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. 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. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 September 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: NA AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OMPF - Official Military Personnel File TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 VA - Veterans Affair ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150008588 5