1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 September 2016 b. Date Received: 15 September 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he is trying to go back to school and get his peace officer certification. He was discharged for his mistakes as a young guy and have learned from them. His discharge has prevented him from joining any department; and he wishes to serve his city. He was going through a lot of things during his discharge process and thought he could handle them on his own. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, applicant had no mental health issues while in service. He was seen once in September of 2005 for fainting and was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder. Applicant has no mental health condition other than substance abuse. No VA records. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 29 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, Paragraph 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 27 January 2007 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 January 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he failed to report to his appointed place of duty several times; he failed to obey a general regulation; he drove under the influence of alcohol; he assaulted a civilian law enforcement officer, wrongfully appropriated a motor vehicle, drove without a USAREUR driver's license which all resulted in a Summary Court-Martial; and he wrongfully used D-amphetamine and methamphetamine. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 January 2007, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 January 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 September 2004 / 4 years, 22 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 years / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 2 years, 4 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 12 June 2006, relates the applicant was under investigation for drunken driving, assault consummated by a battery on civilian law enforcement officer, driving without an operator's license, provoking speeches / gestures, wrongful appropriation of a private motor vehicle more than $100, off post. Summary Court-Martial, dated 18 October 2006, the applicant was found guilty of the following offenses; without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x3 (17 July 2006, 10 September 2006 and 10 September 2006); violate a lawful general regulation by wrongfully operating a privately owned vehicle without a valid U.S. Forces Certificate of License (11 June 2006); physically control a vehicle, a passenger car, while the alcohol concentration in his blood or breath equaled or exceeded the applicable limit under subsection (b) as shown by chemical analysis (12 June 2006); wrongfully appropriate a 1993 green Opel sedan, of a value of about $1,200, the property of SPC N.W. (11 June 206); drunk and disorderly, which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces (12 June 2006). He was sentenced to confinement for 15 days, reduction to PVT / E-1 and forfeiture of $849 pay. Positive urinalysis test coded IR (Inspection Random), dated 20 November 2006, for DAMP and DMETH. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 7 December 2006, relates the applicant met the retention requirements of Chapter 3, AR 40-501; and did not meet the criteria for a MEB. There was no evidence of an emotional or mental condition of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through medical channels. There was no evidence of a psychiatric condition, which would prevent the applicant from participation in any legal or administrative actions. He was mentally responsible for his behavior, could distinguish right from wrong, and possessed sufficient mental capacity to understand and participate in any administrative or judicial proceedings. CID Report of Investigation, dated 29 December 2006, revealed the applicant was under investigation for wrongful use of dangerous drugs. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / Military confinement for 15 days (18 October 2006 to 3 November 2006, as a result of Summary Court-Martial. However, this period is not annotated on the DD Form 214 block 29, dates of time lost during this period. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 8 January 2007, indicated the applicant had an adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application (six pages). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states in his application he was in armed security for almost five years. He also was a volunteer firefighter with the Pasadena Fire Department for about a year and a half. 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. 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 the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's record of service and the issues 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 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, he is trying to go back to school and get his peace officer certification. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant further contends, he was discharged for his mistakes as a young guy and have learned from them. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The applicant also contends, his discharge has prevented him from joining any department; and he wishes to serve his city. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The applicant additionally contends, he was going through a lot of things during his discharge process and thought he could handle them on his own. 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 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 29 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 AR20160015166 4