1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 September 2016 b. Date Received: 29 September 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 to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, the urinalysis incident that he was discharged for occurred in September 2008, while in Iraq and a different unit. The Article 15 hearing was conducted in March 2010. Evidence will show that the basis for his discharge was not performed to standard, as any findings would have been thrown out by the commander who was in command at the time of the incident. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time to include the military electronic medical record, the applicant had a medical or behavioral health condition that was mitigating for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. In summary, SMs Adjustment Disorder (primarily anxiety and depressive symptoms) can be associated with use of alcohol and substances for self-medication and risk-taking behaviors, therefore, there is a nexus between this applicant's misconduct (use of marijuana) and his behavioral health symptoms. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 6 December 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge was improper based on the applicant's length of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. misconduct occurred during a prior period of enlistment and an in-service diagnosis of OBH), and a prior period of honorable service. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. The Board determined the RE code 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 22 July 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 June 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: While deployed to Iraq, the applicant tested positive for the use of Amphetamines in September 2008. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 June 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 July 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 March 2009 (NIF, but per commander's report, dated 28 June 2017 / 5 years (according to ERB with an ETS date of 6 March 2014) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 19D10, Cavalry Scout / 2 years, 10 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (13 September 2007 to 6 May 2009) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (11 June 2008 to 15 September 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; ICM; CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 27 October 2008, shows the applicant tested positive for Amphetamine during an Inspection, Unit (IU) urinalysis testing conducted on 7 September 2008. FG Article 15, dated 5 May 2010, for wrongfully using Amphetamines between 5 September 2008 and 7 September 2008. The punishment consisted of a reduction of E-1, forfeiture of $723 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 May 2010, shows a diagnosis of "AXIS I Adjustment Disorder." 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application, dated 25 September 2016; DD Form 214; and memorandum for record, dated 31 October 2011. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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 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. 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 to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. 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. By the incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service. The applicant contends his discharge was unjust because the basis for his discharge was not performed to standard. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. The third party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character and performance. However, the person providing the character reference statement was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, the statement does not provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. Although the applicant did not raise any behavioral health issues, a careful review of his available record reflects being diagnosed with a behavioral health medical condition. 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 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 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 6 December 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge was improper based on the applicant's length of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. misconduct occurred during a prior period of enlistment and an in-service diagnosis of OBH), and a prior period of honorable service. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. The Board determined the RE code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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: 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 AR20160016772 1