1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 December 2015 b. Date Received: 11 December 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 court-martial was unjustified and a 30 day confinement was served; he served prison time for an action that he didn't commit (use of controlled item). After testing positive on the urinalysis he asked to be assigned a lawyer, which was denied. His roommate who also came up positive on the urinalysis, no actions were initiated against the other Soldier. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant has no behavioral health diagnoses in AHLTA other than a diagnosis for cocaine abuse that he received as a result of a positive urine screen. In his pre-discharge Mental Status Exam, he was again found to be free of any mental-health diagnosis other than one related to substance abuse, and cleared for a chapter 14 discharge. He also, despite a positive urine screen for cocaine, has denied any intentional use of any illegal substances. In reviewing available records, the Joint Legal Viewer (JLV) showed that he now has a 100 percent VA service-connected disability rating, with at least 50 percent for PTSD. A disability evaluation on 14 June 2014 referenced the 50 percent PTSD disability rating, but concluded his PTSD was in "partial remission." The rating was seeking, among other things, an increase in his PTSD rating. The evaluator also mentioned the rating was obtained in a pension evaluation of the applicant by the VA on 4 April 2011, but I was unable to find the note on that evaluation in JLV. Further, the applicant has not, if one relies on available records, engaged in treatment for PTSD. The 14 June 2014 note did seem to imply that the PTSD arose from applicant's deployment to "Iraq/Afghanistan" from 2001 to 2002. In any event, no behavioral-condition existed at the time of the applicant's discharge and he has maintained he was wrongly convicted for something he did not do. In the same court-martial that found him guilty of using cocaine, he was acquitted on 3 other specifications. Based on available evidence, there is no ground for believe he had any behavior-health relevant to his discharge under Chapter 14-12c. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 24 February 2017, 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 (Abuse of Illegal Drugs) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 November 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 October 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant tested positive for cocaine, a controlled substance (23 May 2005). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 6 October 2005 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived, 6 October 2005 (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 October 2005 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 March 2004 / 2 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91W10, Health Care Specialist / 9 years, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 15 October 1996 to 14 December 1998 / HD RA, 15 December 1998 to 28 January 2001 / HD RA, 29 January 2001 to 21 March 2004 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, Germany, SWA / Kuwait/Iraq (28 February 2003 to 23 August 2003) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-4, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NOPDR, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Positive urinalysis test coded IR (Inspection Random), dated 23 May 2005, for BZE. CID Report of Investigation, dated 13 June 2005, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongful use of cocaine. CID Report of Investigation, dated 20 July 2005, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongful use of cocaine and making a false statement. Summary Court-Martial, dated 21 September 2005, the applicant was found guilty of wrongfully use of cocaine (between 16 May 2005 and 23 May 2005). He was sentenced to be confined for 15 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 13 days, (Confinement Military Authorities, 21 September 2005 to 4 October 2005) j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 June 2005, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) substance related disorder not otherwise specified (NOS). There is no evidence of any mental disease or defect, which would warrant a disposition through medical/psychiatric channels. He was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and a Department of Veterans Affairs Summary of Benefits 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. 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." 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, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending, his court-martial was unjustified and a 30 day confinement was served; he served prison time for an action that he didn't commit (use of control item). The record of evidence shows applicant was found guilty by Summary Court- Martial for wrongful use of cocaine. The record also contains a positive urinalysis test for cocaine. The applicant further contends, after testing positive on the urinalysis he asked to be assigned a lawyer, which was denied. The evidence of record also shows the applicant was assigned 1LT J.M. as his defense counsel. The applicant also contends, his roommate who also came up positive on the urinalysis, no actions were initiated against the other Soldier. The method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. 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 24 February 2017, 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 Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change f. Restore Grade to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer 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 NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150019258 4