1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 16 June 2015 b. Date Received: 17 June 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, his characterization was based on an isolated incident during his 29 months of service, with no other adverse action. The applicant contends that after he returned from deployment, he started seeking health from behavioral health and was prescribed medication for severe depression, but nothing was working. The applicant states that he could not cope with anything and that he was in a dark place. One night, at a party, someone brought drugs and in a moment of weakness, the applicant took them without hesitation. Shortly after, he failed the company urinalysis. The applicant states that had he really knew how things were going to be, he would have fought until his last breath. The applicant contends that his leadership reassured him that he would still receive his educational benefits with a general discharge. Since his discharge, the applicant got a full time job as a security officer, attained his Associates Degree in Health Science, earned a place on the Dean’s List, and is now working with a career counselor. The applicant states that having a general discharge has been a huge burden, limiting him from getting the help he needs to move forward in the civilian world. He desires to receive VA benefits. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no mitigating medical of behavioral health condition(s) for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. The applicant was separated for wrongful use of cocaine and d-amphetamine. He stated that he used the illicit drugs in an attempt to treat his severe Depression because the prescription medications were not working. The file included a letter from a physician's assistant (PA) dated 11 June 2015. The PA indicated that the applicant's extreme depression contributed to his decision to use illegal drugs. However, the PA also reported that the applicant had noticeable improvement when placed on a combination of medications, Prozac and Abilify. Also, the applicant reported that he obtained the illegal drugs while attending a party. Voluntary engagement in social activities such as parties is not characteristic of the severe, unresponsive depression as claimed by the applicant. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 August 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, Paragraph 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 6 June 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 May 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant wrongfully used cocaine and d-amphetamine. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 14 May 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 16 May 2014 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 3 October 2011 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 2 years, 8 months, and 4 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (15 December 2012 – 28 August 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWTSM, ASR, NATO Medal, MUC g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 27 March 2014, reflects the applicant tested positive for cocaine and d-amphetamine during a Competence for Duty/Command Direct/Fitness for duty (CO) urinalysis testing conducted on 11 March 2014. FG Article 15, dated 1 May 2014, for wrongfully using cocaine (between 8 March 2014 and 11 March 2014) and wrongfully using d-amphetamine (between 8 March 2014 and 11 March 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $765.00 pay for two months, extra duty for 45 days, and an oral reprimand. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for drug use and pending separation action. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 22 April 2014, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Depression, not otherwise specified (NOS). The applicant was screened for PTSD and mTBI, both screens were negative. The applicant was appeared to be psychologically stable and fit for full-duty at the time. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), dated 29 April 2014, revealed the applicant was being treated for depression with medications. DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 29 April 2014, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with depression. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 16 June 2015; self-authored statement; DD Form 214; and the following: Four character and support statements; Chronological Record of Medical Care; Notification of Separation Memorandum, dated 12 May 2014; William Beaumont Army Medical Center document; Kaplan University Diploma; Kaplan University Dean’s List Honors Certificate; State of Tennessee License; Walden Security web page; and, Enlisted Record Brief. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The got a full time job as a security officer, attained his Associates Degree in Health Science, earned a place on the Dean’s List, and is now working with a career counselor. 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. 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. 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. 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 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, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. 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 diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of his separation. 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 his characterization was based on an isolated incident during 29 months of service, with no other adverse action. Although an isolated incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by an isolated incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends that after he returned from deployment, he started seeking health from behavioral health and was prescribed medication for severe depression, but nothing was working. The applicant’s service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of depression; however, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 22 April 2014, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant’s chain of command determined that although he was suffering from depression, he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully. The applicant contends that his leadership reassured him that he would still receive his educational benefits with a general discharge. 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 Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. The applicant has expressed his desire to have better job opportunities and access to veteran’s benefits. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant’s performance. They all recognize his good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant’s chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The applicant’s service record contains a DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document for Drug Testing) that shows the urinalysis test was coded CO which indicates "Competence for Duty/Command Direct/Fitness for duty.” The Limited Use Policy applies to this test basis, per AR 600-85. However, the evidence of record contains a memorandum for record, dated 11 April 2014, which the company commander indicates ordered a 100 percent urinalysis for his unit. The urinalysis was erroneously coded under the command directed testing code of (CO). It should have been coded inspection unit code (IU). In view of the aforementioned, the CO code used on the DD Form 2624 was in all likelihood incorrect and should have been coded IU for “Inspection Unit” instead of CO for “Competence for Duty.” If this was in fact a harmless error, then the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the error on file in this case. The evidence in the record did not create a substantial doubt that the discharge would have been any different if the error had not been made. 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 26 August 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/Issue a New Separation Order: 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: No Change 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 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150010689 1