1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 October 2016 b. Date Received: 11 October 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, he was struggling with psychological issues when he used drugs to enable him to be separated from the Army. He has since worked, tirelessly, to improve himself and provide for his family. He is seeking help for the issues, attending church, and doing everything necessary to maintain strong support group and stay drug free. His current discharge looms over him "like a dark cloud," and prevents him from obtaining gainful employment and providing a better life for his family. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had AHLTA diagnoses of ADHD (impulsive, ADHD (Predominantly Inattentive), ADHD, and Insomnia. He was cleared on a Separation MSE of 29 January 2007 for administrative separation. He has taken Ritalin, per a note of 18 October 2006, since age 11. JLV showed no VA SC disability percentage. He had no items on his VA problem list. He had a Separation Medical Exam on 27 October 2006. He was cleared and was reporting no psychiatric symptoms or history at that time. He had a Separation MSE on 29 January 2007. It found he met army Medical Retention Standards and cleared him for discharge. This applicant has no mitigating psychiatric conditions. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 December 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25, 26, 27, and 28, contain erroneous entries. The Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 25, separation authority changed to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, b. block 26, separation code changed to JKQ, c. block 27, reentry code changed to 3, and d. block 28, narrative reason for separation changed to Misconduct (Serious Offense). (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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 17 May 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 April 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: he wrongfully used marijuana between 16 October 2006 and 15 November 2006; he wrongfully used marijuana between 11 January 2007 and 12 February 2007; he wrongfully used cocaine between 5 February 2007 and 12 February 2007; he failed to report on six separate occasions to 0630 and 0900 accountability formations on 6 March 2007, 0630 formation on 22 January 2007, 0630 formation on 23 January 2007, 0630 formation on 3 January 2007, and 0900 formation on 2 February 2007; and he was AWOL from 9 March 2007, until 29 March 2007. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 April 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Unconditionally waived 12 April 2007 (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 April 2007 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 November 2005 / 3 years, 25 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / GED / 117 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92F10, H7 Petroleum Supply Specialist / 1 year, 5 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum, dated 22 November 2006, shows the applicant tested positive for marijuana for a urinalysis testing conducted on 14 November 2006. FG Article 15, dated 15 December 2006, for wrongfully using marijuana between 10 November 2006 and 14 November 2006. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $636 pay per month for two months; and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 January 2007, psychiatrically cleared the applicant for administrative separation. Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 20 February 2007, shows the applicant tested positive for cocaine during an Inspection, Unit (IU) urinalysis testing conducted on 12 February 2007. Negative counseling statements for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; failing to following directions and regulations; substandard condition of barracks room; and testing positive for marijuana during a 100 percent urinalysis conducted by the unit. DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 9 March 2007, changed the applicant's duty status from PDY to AWOL, effective 9 March 2007. DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action, dated 30 March 2007, changed the applicant's duty status from AWOL to PDY, effective 29 March 2007. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 20 days (AWOL: 9 March 2007 to 28 March 2007) / applicant returned to unit j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 5 October 2016. 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(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. 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's available record of service and the issues submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. Upon a careful review of the entire case file, the service record reflects that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, separation authority as AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2), block 26 separation code as "JKK," block 27 reentry code as "4," and block 28, narrative reason for separation as "Misconduct (Drug Abuse)." However, the separation authority approving separation UP AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (serious offense), the applicant's DD Form 214 requires the following administrative corrections: a. block 25, separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c; b. block 26, separation code to JKQ; c. block 27, reentry code to 3; and c. block 28, reason for separation to Misconduct (Serious Offense). The record further 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 diminished the quality of his service. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends that medical issues, such as struggling with psychological issues, contributed to his discharge from the Army. However, the service record does not support the applicant's contentions, and no evidence to support any diagnosis of behavioral health issues has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment to provide for his family. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 15 December 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25, 26, 27, and 28, contain erroneous entries. The Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 25, separation authority changed to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, b. block 26, separation code changed to JKQ, c. block 27, reentry code changed to 3, and d. block 28, narrative reason for separation changed to Misconduct (Serious Offense). 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Serious Offense) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKQ / RE-3 f. 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 AR20160017447 6