1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 August 2016 b. Date Received: 12 August 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 did not receive the correct characterization of service. His discharge has hindered him from receiving jobs and properly caring for his family of five. He was self-enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) and this fact was ignored during his separation proceedings. The proceedings were unfair and inequitable and were against policies, regulations and the tradition of service. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 November 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 (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200 / Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 4 December 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 September 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between on or about 11 March 2015 and on or about 10 April 2015, he wrongfully used marijuana. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 September 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 14 November 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 January 2013 / 3 years, 26 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / 3 Years College / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 2 years, 11 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 3 April 2015, reflects the applicant tested negative for illegal drugs, during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 26 March 2015. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 21 April 2015, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 106 (marijuana), during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing, conducted on 10 April 2015. Law Enforcement Report - Initial Final, dated 28 April 2015, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Use / Possession of marijuana as determined by a positive urinalysis. Involvement with the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Counseling Center (memo), dated 4 May 2015, reflects, in pertinent part: The applicant's "involvement with the ASAP Counseling Center began with an assessment that occurred on 24 Mar[ch] 2015, following [the applicant's] admission of abuse of prescribed pain management medication (Percocet) and reported one time use of Cannabis. The diagnostic impression was Opioid Abuse and Cannabis Use and [he was] enrolled in outpatient treatment with the goal of establishing a sustained recovery, free from the use of all mood- altering substances. The treatment plan consisted of [the applicant] achieving and maintaining abstinence and regular attendance at scheduled weekly individual and or group counseling sessions. [The applicant was] engaged in treatment and required to continue to comply with ASAP policy." FG Article 15, dated 15 June 2015, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 11 March and 10 April 2015). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $773 pay per month for two months (suspended); extra duty and restriction for 45 days; and, an oral reprimand. Legal Review of Article 15 Appeal, dated 10 July 2015, reflects, in pertinent part: "The limited use policy under AR 600-85 is not applicable. Two experts, one an Army Major from the Tripler Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory and the other a Navy Lieutenant from Jacksonville FTDTL, opined that the result of the 10 April 2015, urinalysis were extremely inconsistent with a one-time use that predated 24 March, the date of self-referral. Rather, the experts opined the positive THC 106 urinalysis indicated there had been use after [the applicant] self-referred. Test results that indicate drug abuse after self-referral are not protected by the limited use policy, AR 600-85, para[graph] 10-12a (6)." Legal Review of Separation under AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c (2), dated 14 October 2015, reflects, in pertinent part: "The recommended characterization of service (General, Under Honorable Conditions) is authorized under this chapter. [The applicant's] counsel seeks to invoke the limited use policy, which would entitle [the applicant] to an Honorable discharge. However, the separation packet indicates that [the applicant] self-referred to ASAP on 24 March 2014. Two days later, on 26 March, he tested negative for THC. This indicates use after self-referral. [The applicant] relies on his own self-serving and uncorroborated statement that he put water in the 26 March specimen. Additionally, although the notification period spanned from 10 April to 11 March (30 days), the evidence supports a finding of wrongful use after 24 March. A positive test on 10 April at the level identified is not consistent with a one-time use prior to 24 March as claimed by [the applicant]. So long as [one] find[s] that the preponderance of evidence supports a finding of wrongful use after 24 March, the limited use policy would not apply IAW AR 600-85, para[graph] 10-12a(6)." i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 15 July 2015, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with Cannabis Abuse and Opioid Abuse-Uncomplicated (Axis I). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 293; documents from his separation proceedings; ASAP enrollment letter; and, seven character 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. 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. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. 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 marred the quality of his service. The record 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. 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 his discharge was unfair and inequitable, because his command ignored his self-referral in the ASAP; and, therefore limited use information was considered in his separation proceedings. 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 evidence of record reflects the applicant's command determined, after reviewing legal guidance, that the applicant's positive urinalysis was not protected under the limited use policy as defined in AR 600-85. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 8 November 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/Issue new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change f. Restoration to Grade: 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 AR20160014454 2