1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 January 2016 b. Date Received: 19 January 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, his actions of 15 years ago were of a confused, angry, and heartbroken person because the death of his mother, who was his rock and foundation, was a devastating blow to him. He had enlisted with a strong and stern military background and a desire to serve with honor, but it changed due to his mother's passing. While on emergency leave from Korea, his request to extend his leave was denied-he did not want to leave his family, but returned to his unit days later. His depression and hopeless mood deepened. Once his unit returned stateside from Korea, he left his unit. He became homeless and disappeared. It has been 15 years since and he is currently being helped by his oldest brother. He would like a second chance. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 April 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge was improper based on two areas. (1) The record shows the government introduced into the discharge packet the results of a biochemical test which was coded CO (Command Directed or Competence for Duty). This is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85. Use of this information mandates award of an honorable characterization of service. (2) The record also indicates the General Court Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) approved the applicant's discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge, without using the Administrative Board notification procedure of Chapter 2, Section II, AR 635-200. The evidence indicates the applicant was not notified of the possibility of receiving a UOTH characterization of service; thus, entitling him to an administrative separation board. An administrative separation board is a right and required under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, and the record reflects the applicant did not receive an administrative separation board and did not waive it either. Denial of an administrative separation board constituted a prejudicial error to the rights of the applicant and the discharge is improper. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant in full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable, a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 5-3, with a corresponding separation (SPD) code of "JFF." This action entails restoration of grade to E-3/PFC. (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-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 26 March 2003 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 February 2003 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: AWOL (13 July 2002 (sic) until 28 January 2003); and, tested positive for THC (31 January 2003). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) was recommended by the unit commander (according to the notification memorandum, dated 21 February 2003, followed by an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions recommendation (according to unit commander's forwarding memorandum, dated 21 February 2003) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 21 February 2003 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived, 21 February 2003 (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 March 2003 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 January 2000 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 1 year, 7 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Deserter/Absentee Wanted by the Armed Forces, dated 12 December 2001, indicates the applicant's absence began on 20 September 2001 (sic). Three Personnel Action Forms contained in the separation file reflect changes to the applicant's duty status as follows: from "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 13 July 2001, from "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 14 August 2001, from "DFR" to "Present for Duty (PDY)," effective 28 January 2003 (sic) Report of Return of Absentee, dated 28 January 2003, indicates the applicant surrendered to military authorities at Fort Stewart, GA on 28 January 2003, after being absent, beginning 20 September 2001 (sic). (Note: Although several documents, including the unit commander's notification memorandum, depict conflicting effective date of absence, the beginning date on his DD Form 214 corresponds with the effective date of his AWOL status cited in DA Form 4187, dated 31 January 2003.) DD Form 2624, dated 5 February 2003, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC during a "Command Directed" or "Competence for Duty" (CO) urinalysis testing conducted on 31 January 2003. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 February 2003, psychiatrically cleared the applicant for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 564 days (AWOL, 13 July 2001 to 27 January 2003) / surrendered to military authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 11 February 2003, reflects the applicant noted behavioral health issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with self-authored statement, and two supporting statements. 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. Paragraph 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. After carefully reviewing the application, the service record reflects that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, separation authority as AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2), block 26 separation code as "JKK," and block 28, narrative reason for separation as "Misconduct." Therefore and as approved by the separation authority, the following administrative corrections are recommended: a. block 25, separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c; b. block 26, separation code to JKQ; and c. block 28, reason for separation to Misconduct (Serious Offense). The record also reflects that the DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing), showing the reason for testing was "CO" reflects a violation of the limited use policy, which mandates an upgrade of the applicant's UOTH discharge to an honorable discharge. However, additional information shows the submitting unit was the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) with the applicant's unit as additional service information. There is no further record of the applicant being enrolled in ASAP. There is no indication the command believed the urinalysis was improperly coded "CO." There are also no CID reports or counseling statements that shed any light on the reason the urinalysis was authorized, and there is no record of any imposition of an Article 15 for the positive urinalysis. Nonetheless, the record also documents the applicant's return from AWOL on 28 January 2003, and the urinalysis was conducted by the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), three days after his return from AWOL on 31 January 2003. Most units have a command policy which require Soldiers be tested for the use of illegal drugs upon their return from an AWOL. If the Board determines a preponderance of the evidence indicates the urinalysis was miscoded and that it should have been coded "IO" (Other, Command Policy), as a urinalysis conducted pursuant to command policy, then the limited use policy was not violated by the introduction of the urinalysis report into the separation file. On the other hand, if the Board cannot determine by a preponderance of evidence that the urinalysis was conducted pursuant to a command policy requiring testing of all returning AWOLs, then the limited use policy would require awarding an Honorable discharge. In view of the foregoing, the question whether the urinalysis was properly coded is a question of fact for the Army Discharge Review Board to determine, given the contrary conclusions that could be drawn by the command's treating the urinalysis as though it was not limited use evidence. The command was either unaware of the implications of the limited use policy or it failed to note in the record the urinalysis was improperly coded. Additionally, the record further indicates that when the applicant was notified of his involuntary separation action on 21 February 2003, the unit commander was recommending a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, and that the separation authority may direct an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge. However, the General Court Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) approved the applicant's discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. There is no record of any notice to the applicant that he might receive a UOTH discharge, and that he was entitled to an administrative separation board, pursuant to a notice under Chapter 2, Section II, of an Administrative Board Procedure. The use of the notification procedure under Chapter 2, Section I, is authorized if the characterization of service of UOTH is not warranted. Although the applicant waived all his rights, including the right to the board, the lease favorable characterization of service he could have received was a general (under honorable conditions). Aside from the above addressed matters, the record further 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. By the incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service. The applicant contends that family issues, such as the passing of his mother had affected him both mentally and physically, and ultimately his behavior that led him to be discharged. 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. The applicant's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues, which involved depression and anxiety issues after the death of his mother were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. The discharge was not consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was not within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was not 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 was improper based on two areas. (1) The record shows the government introduced into the discharge packet the results of a biochemical test which was coded CO (Command Directed or Competence for Duty). This is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85. Use of this information mandates award of an honorable characterization of service. (2) The record also indicates the General Court Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) approved the applicant's discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge, without using the Administrative Board notification procedure of Chapter 2, Section II, AR 635-200. The evidence indicates the applicant was not notified of the possibility of receiving a UOTH characterization of service; thus, entitling him to an administrative separation board. An administrative separation board is a right and required under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, and the record reflects the applicant did not receive an administrative separation board and did not waive it either. Denial of an administrative separation board constituted a prejudicial error to the rights of the applicant and the discharge is improper. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant in full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable, a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 5-3, with a corresponding separation (SPD) code of "JFF." This action entails restoration of grade to E-3/PFC. 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: E-3/PFC 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 AR20160002497 7