1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 September 2016 b. Date Received: 15 September 2016 c. Counsel: . 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, six weeks after deploying to Afghanistan, his unit started going on patrol and for about a month, his vehicle did not have armor, which led him to believe they were sitting ducks. The applicant felt that the chain of command did not care about their safety; the mission was more important and his unit was stretched so thin that there was a period when patrols would go on day and night missions six days a week. The morale and enthusiasm was at its worst, patrol members would argue constantly, goodwill patrols were greeted with hostile, rock-throwing villagers, and the applicant became scared for his life. The applicant states that he began using substances to escape reality and cope. The disregard for the lives of the patrol members reflected the incompetence of his leadership. Upon returning to Hawaii, the applicant increased his substance use and was bitter and resentful toward everyone. The applicant states that he made multiple mistakes in the Army and instead of being offered help and counseling, he was kicked out so that he could not receive benefits; he left the Army worse off than when he joined. He attended school, but he would take long breaks between classes and then would not want to continue his education. In 2012, he began his current employment, where he finally obtained a decent position. His attitude slightly improved, but his behavior was still the same and he was still bitter. In March 2012, he broke his jaw and later broke his leg due to his drinking. His broken leg became his saving grace. With the help of the VA, he has not drank, has stayed out of trouble, and has kept his job. His life is increasingly better and he is a member of Alcoholics Anonymous and volunteers. He has been going to school and eventually, he would like to work with fellow veterans who have fell on hard times. He accepts full responsibility for his actions and looks to move forward in his life. An upgrade would keep him heading in the right direction. He believes this is plausible because he had no help or guidance to fight what decisions were being made about his future at the time of his discharge. He stands up for himself because he believes he is a good person who is capable of doing so much. With help from the VA, he can learn from his past mistakes and leave them in the past. The record indicates the applicant had a prior records review in 2014. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, a review of medical records showed no diagnoses for PTSD in the Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), nor did the applicant provide evidence from licensed providers of psychiatric diagnoses. The JLV did show an encounter during his active duty service when he received a diagnosis, for reasons that were not spelled out, of Major Depressive Disorder, and he received prescription for Wellbutrin, an antidepressant, to help manage his symptoms. The available records provided insufficient evidence to mitigate his misconduct based on any mental-health condition at the time of his misconduct. If anything, the available records best supported the hypothesis that drug use was making a wreck of this applicant's life until breaking his legs whilst intoxicated enabled him to get the help that has enabled him to turn his life around. Finally, the JLV did not show any service-connected disability. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at San Antonio, TX on 22 March 2017, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and his post service accomplishments (i.e. building a family and a recovering addict at church and AA), and as a result it is now inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. (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: 15 February 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 January 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant wrongfully used marijuana (between 12 September and 12 October 2005) and wrongfully used hashish (28 September 2004). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 18 January 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 January 2006 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 March 2003 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 25U10, Signal Support System Specialist / 2 years, 11 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (24 March 2004 to 23 March 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, ACM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 13 November 2004, for wrongfully using hashish (28 September 2004). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $596 pay per month for two months, and extra duty and restriction for 30 days. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 19 October 2005, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC (marijuana) during a Probable Cause (PO) urinalysis testing conducted on 12 October 2005. FG Article 15, dated 3 November 2005, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 12 September and October 2005). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $617 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 December 2005, 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. Developmental Counseling Form for using a controlled substance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: VA Disability Rating Decision letter, dated 28 May 2015, reflects the applicant was rated 30 percent disabled for generalized anxiety disorder with alcohol use disorder (claimed as PTSD). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; self-authored statement; seven character statements; marriage certificate; VA Disability Rating Decision Letter; and a copy of his college transcripts. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has obtained employment, is married, volunteers, attends AA meetings, and attends school. 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. 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." 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 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 be retained on active duty. The applicant contends he was discharged in order to deny him benefits. 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The Veterans Administration has granted the applicant a service connected disability for PTSD. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 19 December 2005, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good conduct after leaving the Army; however, 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. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted no additional documents. b. The applicant presented the following additional contentions: change narrative reason to convenience of the government. c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None. 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at San Antonio, TX on 22 March 2017, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and his post service accomplishments (i.e. building a family and a recovering addict at church and AA), and as a result it is now inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) 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 AR20160015406 1