1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 September 2016 b. Date Received: 19 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident in over 68 months of service with no other adverse incident. Documentary evidence will show that he was an outstanding Soldier, who was an honor graduate and on the commandant's list, and the Soldier of the month while deployed in a combat zone. He was assigned to the US Army Special Forces Qualification Course when he was alerted a week earlier that he and several Soldiers would submit to a urinalysis test. The applicant detailed the events and circumstances surrounding the positive urinalysis that led to his discharge. He asserts he never took any drugs. There are sworn statements indicating the test was not administered correctly; however, one by the urinalysis administrator and one other, were never included in his separation packet. He was in the process of becoming a Green Beret, which takes almost two years. He was also a single father with full custody and a "God fearing man of the Mormon Faith," who do not consume anything that alters their minds or Spirits. He has never failed any drug tests because that is not him-he strived to be the best at everything and they are not attributes of a drug abuser. Since his discharge, he always strived to succeed as he was an employee of the month and selected to be on the cover of GI Jobs magazine representing a company. Although he was informed he met the "20/30-month rule" and completed his first enlistment honorably, when he enrolled in college, he learned due to his GD, he was not entitled to the Post 9/11 GI Bill. He is on the "Dean's List" in college but forced to live off student loans, which creates substantial financial hardship for him and his son. An upgrade would provide him the full benefits he earned after almost six years of honorable service and deployments to war zones. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, case file, AHLTA and JLV were reviewed. AHLTA notes indicate applicant had FAP involvement for a domestic incident involving his spouse. FAP notes indicate applicant was cooperative and demonstrated a willingness to attend marital counseling but his wife refused to do so. AHLTA also indicates applicant attended anger management group and participated in individual therapy. Applicant also followed by ASAP for Alcohol Abuse and Cocaine Abuse. Applicant successfully completed ASAP. JLV indicates applicant is 80% service connected, 50% of which is for PTSD. Based on the available information, the applicant has a mitigating Behavioral Health condition- PTSD-for the offenses leading to his discharge from the Army. As PTSD is associated with the use of illicit substances to self-medicate symptoms, there is a nexus between his PTSD and his wrongful use of cocaine In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 November 2017, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD with VA 50% PTSD rating and behavioral health issues), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635- 200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) and the separation code to JKN. (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: 3 April 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 November 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant tested positive for cocaine on 31 May 2011. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) / he was also recommended for retention (4) Legal Consultation Date: 1 December 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 January 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 August 2006 / 6 years, 2 months, 28 weeks (The applicant extended his enlistment, an additional 38 months, on 16 December 2009) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 119 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 91M20, Bradley Fighting Vehicle System Maintainer / 5 years, 7 months, 19 days (Note years of net active service is incorrect on DD Form 214) d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (7 April 2008 to 11 May 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3; AAM; AGCM; NDSM; ICM-CS; GWOTSM; NCOPDR; ASR; OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: 2 June 2009 thru 11 February 2010, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 9 June 2011, shows the applicant tested positive for cocaine during an Inspection, Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 31 May 2011. FG Article 15, dated 23 August 2011, for wrongfully using cocaine on 31 May 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $400 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 30 days of extra duty. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 August 2011, psychologically cleared the applicant for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 23 November 2011, reprimanded the applicant for failing to complete a requested breathalyzer after being suspected of operating a motor vehicle while impaired. The separation file includes associated documents of an OPREP/SPOTREP and State of North Carolina district court findings of probable cause and orders; conditions of release and release order; and appearance bond for pretrial release, dated 1 November 2011. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 11 September 2016, with self-authored statement; DD Form 214; page 3 of CID report; unit commander's recommendation, dated 20 October 2011; seven character reference statements; AGCM Permanent Order; NCOER; two Service School Academic Evaluation Reports; deployment history report; sworn statement; attorney-authored letter, dated 11 September 2012; Army Continuing Education System statement, dated 22 March 2012; Army physical fitness badge memorandum; four recommendations for award; five certificates of achievement; certificate of appreciation; three drivers and mechanics badge Permanent Orders; ERB; SFAS-selected memorandum; record fire scorecard; unofficial transcript; and picture depicting "G.I. Jobs." 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, since his discharge, he always strived to succeed as he was an employee of the month and selected to be on the cover of GI Jobs magazine representing his employment, and he is on the "Dean's List" in college. 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. 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 inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident in his 68 months of service. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends his discharge was unjust because he had never taken any drugs; sworn statements indicating the test was not administered correctly were not included in his separation file, and he is a "God fearing man of the Mormon Faith," who does not consume anything that can alter the mind or Spirit. 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 In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, and his post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant contends an upgrade would provide him the full benefits he earned; however, eligibility for veterans' 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character. 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. 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 17 November 2017, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD with VA 50% PTSD rating and behavioral health issues), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) and the separation code to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JKN / 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 AR20160017751 4