1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 May 2016 b. Date Received: 27 May 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 and a change to his narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to reenlist. The applicant contends his overall performance as an Army values based Soldier was overlooked when his initial discharge was processed under Article 15. He believes the type of separation imposed for misconduct was excessive and inequitable. He did not fully grasp the severity of the separation at the time he was cited for his misconduct. He choose to accept full ownership of his situation and attempted to absorb the punishment given him with hopes that his overall performance and known character would be considered and a decision for retention would result despite the Article 15. He contends although his misconduct was accurate, he always believed the punishment he was issued far outweighed the singular offense. What appears overlooked was his otherwise honorable record instead of a single incident in 42 months of exemplary service during his time at his duty station and his deployment to Afghanistan. In addition, during his 42 months of service he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal three times, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Combat Medic Badge. Also, he had a positive screening for PTSD that he believes was not taken into consideration. Though it does not justify his misconduct, it was because of emotional distress and uncontrolled thoughts that he resorted to taking Adderall as an attempt to concentrate. He did that because of his medically-prescribed use of Adderall as a child and therefore thought it may have helped him again. He ignorantly did not associate it with the category of illicit substance. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had a medical or behavioral health condition that was mitigating for the reasons leading to an early separation. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 31 January 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, in-service diagnosis of OBH and post-service PTSD diagnosis. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. (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: 13 December 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 June 2010 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 3 years, 6 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (7 March 2012 to 3 November 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-3, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, NATOMDL, ACM-2CS, CMB g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF; however, documents submitted by the applicant from a Licensed Psychologist show the applicant was diagnosed with Military- related PTSD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, predominantly inattentive type, and traumatic brain injury. He also submitted and a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs, dated 20 January 2016, showing he is receiving 30 percent service connected disabilities for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; summary of request; Article 15 Proceedings; enlisted record brief; certificate of achievement; recommendation for training; course completion certificates; orders for awards; letters of support; promotion documents; letter reference PTSD guidance; and DD Form 214. The evidence also included a letter from a Licensed Psychologist who made reference to the applicant having been diagnosed with Military-related PTSD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, predominantly inattentive type, and traumatic brain injury and a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs, dated 20 January 2016, showing the applicant is receiving 30 percent service connected disabilities for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 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. 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 "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (drug abuse). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKK" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service 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 a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment 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 characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors 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. Caution shall be exercised 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 and a change to his narrative reason for discharge. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), by reason of misconduct (drug abuse), with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). Barring evidence to the contrary, all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The applicant request a change to the narrative reason for his discharge. However, the appropriate SPD code and narrative reason to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged for drug offenses is "JKK" by reason of Misconduct (drug abuse) and the RE code is 4. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. The applicant seeks relief contending his overall performance as an Army values based Soldier was overlooked when his initial discharge was processed under Article 15. He believes the type of separation imposed for misconduct was excessive and inequitable. He did not fully grasp the severity of the separation at the time he was cited for his misconduct. He choose to accept full ownership of his situation and attempted to absorb the punishment given him with hopes that his overall performance and known character would be considered and a decision for retention would result despite the Article 15. He contends although his misconduct was accurate, he always believed the punishment he was issued fare outweighed the singular offense. What appears overlooked was his otherwise honorable record instead of a single incident in 42 months of exemplary service during his time at his duty station and his deployment to Afghanistan. In addition, during his 42 months of service he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal three times, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Combat Medic Badge. The applicant contentions were carefully considered. However, it is unknown if these contentions have merit because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are not contained in the service record. The burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. Also, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. The applicant contends he had a positive screening for PTSD that he believes was not taken into consideration. Though it does not justify his misconduct, it was because of emotional distress and uncontrolled thoughts that he resorted to taking Adderall as an attempt to concentrate. He did that because of his medically-prescribed use of Adderall as a child and therefore thought it may have helped him again. He ignorantly did not associated it with the category of illicit substance. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Furthermore, the fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. Based on the available record 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 31 January 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, in-service diagnosis of OBH and post- service PTSD diagnosis. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635- 200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JKN / Change to RE code to 3 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 AR20160010278 1