1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 30 December 2015 b. Date Received: 7 January 2016 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, he served with honor and received awards, which include the Purple Heart and a CIB. While deployed, the applicant was wounded in combat and although it was suggested that he return stateside, he chose to remain. He did not receive immediate medical attention for injuries sustained overseas upon his return. The applicant had difficulty adjusting physically, emotionally, and mentally to stateside duty. He contends that he should have received a physical disability and/or medical discharge based on his physical, emotional and mental diagnosis. His positive UA was the sole reason for his discharge. He believes his commendable service and sacrifice on behalf of his country speaks for itself and warrants an upgrade to honorable. His short-comings that occurred during his military service did not impede his performance as a Soldier nor should they detract from him receiving the warranted "honorable" discharge for his service. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, he was wounded in July 2012, and elected to stay with his unit rather than return to the States. he also sustained a TBI. His supportive materials included numerous references from soldiers who served in battle with him. After completing his deployment, he began to slide into behavior that led to his discharge. The records supports mitigation of all drug abuse that occurred after his combat injury in July 2012. His condition after his deployment left him ill-equipped to deal with his drug problems and it appears likely that he needed a more intensive approach to treatment than he received. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 April 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the applicant's overall length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. VA diagnosis of PTSD service-connected; 80 percent disability rating) mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changes to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 5-3, the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, and the separation code to JFF. (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: 4 October 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 June 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant used oxymorphone (between 8 March 2012 and 12 March 2012 and between 8 December 2012 and 12 December 2012). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 8 July 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Conditionally waived, 8 July 2013; however, the applicant was not entitled to an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 September 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 February 2011 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 8 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (1 April 2012 to 1 December 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: PH, ARCOM. NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 3 February 2012, for allowing another Soldier to drive under the influence of alcohol and ride in his POV with him, which conduct was prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the armed forces or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces (14 January 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $347 pay, and extra duty and restriction for 14 days (all suspended). A positive urinalysis test coded IU (Inspection Unit), dated 12 December 2012, for OXMOR. FG Article 15, dated 14 March 2013, for wrongfully using oxymorphone (between 8 March 2012 and 12 March 2012 and between 8 December 2012 and 12 December 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, reduction to E 1 (suspended), forfeiture of $400 (suspended), and extra duty and restriction for 45 Days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, undated, reflects the applicant was enrolled in ASAP treatment. He met the criteria set forth in AR 635-200, Chapter 14 for administrative separation. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for failing to follow a lawful order, stealing prescription medication; and block leave counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; eight character / support statements; PH citation; and an ARCOM citation. 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. 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 contends that he served with honor and received awards, which include the Purple Heart and a CIB. In addition, he believes his commendable service and sacrifice on behalf of his country speaks for itself and warrants an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant also contends that he had difficulty adjusting physically, emotionally, and mentally to stateside duty. In addition, he did not receive immediate medical attention for injuries sustained overseas upon his return. The record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. The applicant further contends, he should have received a physical disability and or medical discharge based on his physical, emotional and mental diagnosis. However, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant additionally contends, his positive UA was the sole reason for his discharge. The service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. Lastly, the applicant contends, his short-comings that occurred during his military service did not impede his performance as a Soldier; nor should they distract from him receiving the warranted "honorable" discharge for his service. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that 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. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. However, some of 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 and some were not. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 5 April 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the applicant's overall length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. VA diagnosis of PTSD service-connected; 80 percent disability rating) mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changes to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 5-3, the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, and the separation code to JFF. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 5-3 e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JFF/ No Change to RE code 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 AR20160001145 1