1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 April 2017 b. Date Received: 28 April 2017 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 effect, an upgrade would allow him to fully redeem his good name; put the skills that he has learned in life and in the Army to full use; and, enable him to use the full array of VA benefits. He does not make any excuses for his actions that resulted in his discharge, because there are none. His justification for an upgrade is that it would fully enable him to leave his past behind and allow him to advance through the rest of his life without the mantel of being a drug addict being attached to his name. The evidence of record reflects the applicant had a prior records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 February 2008. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no records in AHLTA. He has a JLV showing a VA SC disability rating of 30%. His VA Problem List shows a variety of physical problems and, in 2010, Alcohol Abuse, Cannabis Abuse, and Substance Abuse. He did not show visits for the treatment of psychiatric problems at the VA. The applicant had a Separation Medical Exam on 11 July 2002, and had a profile of 111111. He also denied psychiatric contacts other than in relation to drug use. His misconduct is not mitigated by his psychiatric condition at the time of its occurrence. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 March 2018, 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: Drug Rehabilitation Failure / AR 635- 200 / Chapter 9 / JPC / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 13 September 2002 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 August 2002 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 1 April 2002, he was enrolled in the ASAP Outpatient Program; On or about 8 July 2002, he tested positive on a urinalysis for marijuana; On 22 July 2002, the Clinical Director, Department of Mental Health, considered him a rehabilitation failure in accordance with AR 600-85; and, On 29 July 2002, he received a FG Article 15, for violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 26 August 2002 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 September 2002 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 April 1999 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 74B10, Information System Operator-Analyst / 3 years, 4 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Rehabilitation Failure Determination (memo), dated 22 July 2002 , reflects the applicant's rehabilitation team met on 27 June 2002 and 1 July 2002, and, determined the applicant had not made satisfactory progress toward achieving the criteria for successful rehabilitation as outlined in AR 600-85. The applicant was enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program on 1 April 2002 with the diagnosis of Cannabis Abuse and Alcohol Abuse. The applicant had participated unsatisfactorily in treatment due to breaking treatment plan, as evidenced by continued cannabis use as evidenced by his testing positive for cannabis on 6 June 2002. The rehabilitation team considered the applicant a rehabilitation failure. Statement of Facts Pertaining to the applicant (memo), dated 22 July 2002, reflects the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), clinical director diagnosed the applicant with cannabis abuse and alcohol abuse on 2 May 2002. The applicant was a command referral to ASAP because of a DUI he received on 20 April 2002*in New Mexico. He was enrolled into treatment on 9 May 2002 and began attending weekly group therapy. He had attended 6 group sessions and the ADAPT and Antabuse/Naltrexone Classes. He had not begun attending Narcotics Anonymous as recommended. The applicant tested positive for THC on 27 June 2002 and 1 July 2002. Due to his relapse, command could proceed with a Chapter 9 in accordance with AR 600-85. FG Article 15, dated 29 July 2002, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 8 June and 8 July 2002. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $552 pay per month for two months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days; and, an oral reprimand. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Per the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), the applicant was diagnosed with Cannabis Abuse and Alcohol Abuse on 1 April 2002. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant provides evidence that he has maintained employment and he has a good police record. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. Army policy states that an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge is authorized depending on the applicant's overall record of service. However, an honorable discharge is required if limited use information is used in the discharge process. 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. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record indicates that on 1 July 2002, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. The applicant had participated unsatisfactorily in a treatment plan and due to breaking his treatment plan, as evidenced by his continued cannabis use he tested positive for cannabis on 6 June 2002. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow him full VA benefits. However, 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 contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to advance in life. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of advancing in life or gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 that 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 additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): Letter of reference for Johnny Martinez, SFC - 1 page b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None listed on the hearing data sheet. c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 March 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. 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. Change SPD Code to: No Change f. Change RE Code 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 AR20170007029 6