1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 6 July 2017 b. Date Received: 24 July 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 and a change to his narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that this is his third appeal in his attempt to remove the harmful characterization of his discharge from his DD Form 214. The description of "drug abuse" along with the general (under honorable conditions) discharge has caused him hardships and disqualified him from some veteran and professional assistance that he would qualify for otherwise. For example, he has experienced discrimination from a Vocational Rehabilitation counselor which prompted a formal complaint and removal from the program. More importantly he has been teaching since February of last year and he is a participant in the troops to teachers program which he was also disqualified from due to the distinction. The money associated with being a part of that program can help support his family and help advance his career as an educator. He has been found eligible to receive his disability compensation and regardless of the increase in that compensation and every office he see in the VA explicitly telling him to never show anyone his DD Form 214, he cannot seem to convince anyone that the label placed on him is a total detriment to him. He contends Cannabis was his choice of pain medication because due to his injuries his only other options were very addictive pain medications that he wanted no parts of; which is why when he got back home he did all he had to make sure that decision was supported by all necessary legal documentation. His medical records show the frequency of his doctor's visits and the pain he was going through, mentally and physically. As he became far removed from his military life, his life progressed and changed as he found his calling in educating young men and women. He is not the man he was four years ago, and is no drug addict. He is a man that made a decision and he suffered for it long after his discharge because it took him almost year to receive any compensation. To place and continue to make him carry around that label is wrong and unjust. As a disabled veteran he deserves respect and that every veteran seeks and he also deserves the right to better himself and his family. Applying for jobs and pursuing his life after his separation is already difficult enough without the indication that he is a drug addict glaring employer's in the face when they come across his paperwork. He really does not think that it's fair that someone seeing that can judge him before they get to know what kind of man he really is. Per the board's medical officer based upon the information available at the time, the SMs electronic military medical records indicated diagnoses of an Adjustment Disorder, Cannabis Abuse, Depression, Partner Relational Problem, and PTSD; however, this diagnosis may have been given in error as his medical notes only indicated he had possible PTSD and the source of the trauma was not listed. SM was first seen by behavioral health in May 2007 when he reported symptoms of depression, sleep problems and increased alcohol use in response to being unable to deploy due to not having a security clearance and facing a MOS reclassification. He reported feeling like a failure due to letting his family down and that he learned he was non-deployable after being unable to get a security clearance due to recent financial problems to include his car being repossessed, having trouble paying back loans and taking the credit card of a friend, which was possibly leading to UCMJ action. March 2008 SM was involved in FAP for harassing and threatening wife through phone calls and emails (March 2008). FAP notes also indicated wife was having an affair and had put a no contact order in place. FAP involvement also occurred in February 2010 for domestic violence in which both SM and spouse were pushing and shoving each other. SM was again involved in FAP October 2012 for child abuse/neglect due to wife giving birth to their newborn who tested positive for opiates and marijuana. Medical note 15 October 2012 indicated SM reported not being aware that wife was using medication during her pregnancy that could lead to problems with the baby. Newborn was kept in intensive care for 7 days. Command directed mental health eval dated 7 November 2010 due to SM being removed from home and placed in the barracks for anger issues and being deemed high risk by Command due to slamming doors and going off on family members to the point that they were afraid he may hurt someone. It was noted SM had 3 FGs, a positive UA, and recent demotion from E4 to E1. Medical note 15 November 2012 indicated SM thought he was supposed to be out of the Army August 2012 for a Med Board for his knee but he instead was going through a court-martial as his unit was accusing him of tempering with a drug test. SM participated in ASAP from 14 January to 15 April 2013 for Cannabis Abuse. According to VA records, SM has a 60% service connected rating for Chronic Pain. VA records also indicated had stressors related to 4 year old son being disabled and wife being addicted to Percocet. Problems with finances, insufficient housing, and homelessness were noted; however, it was also revealed SM was primarily caring for his son and working as a substitute teacher and soon would be the dean of students for a behavior program in addition to overseeing a sports program. VA notes from 2017 indicated SM planned on moving himself and son away from wife and to live in Chicago with his mother. In summary, SMs PTSD symptoms can be associated with the misuse of drugs and/or alcohol; however, it is not reasonably related to the misconduct of altering an official record. Given the numerous FAP reports and disciplinary concerns, it appears that a characterization of GD is appropriate. In a travel panel hearing conducted at Scott Air Force Base, IL on 1 March 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the narrative reason for discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service, a prior period of honorable service, post-service accomplishments, the matters surrounding the discharge and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief by changing the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, the narrative reason for separation to Pattern of Misconduct, the separation code to JKA, and the reentry code to RE-3. The board determined the characterization of service 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, Paragraph 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions)* * Evidence of record shows that on 3 February 2016, the Army Discharge Review Board after carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, determined the applicant's characterization of service was too harsh based on length and quality of the applicant's service, to include the circumstances surrounding the discharge. Accordingly, in a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 February 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions). The Board determined, the reason for the discharge was both proper and equitable, and by a 5-0 vote, voted not to change it. b. Date of Discharge: 26 April 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 January 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: altered an official record, DD Form 689 on 15 May 2012; Disobeyed a lawful command from his superior commissioned officer on 26 June 2012; Wrongfully used marijuana between on or about 14 July 2012 and on or about 14 August 2012; and Wrongfully used marijuana between on or about 3 September 2012 and on or about 3 October 2012, (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 1 March 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Unconditionally waived on 1 March 2013 It should be noted the record also contains an election of rights memorandum which was signed by the applicant dated 15 June 2013, which shows the applicant requested a personal appearance before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 March 2013 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The GCMCA found the applicant's medical condition was not the direct or substantial contributing cause of his conduct that led to his separation proceedings. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 October 2010 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / Bachelor of Arts degree / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 7 years, 2 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 15 February 2006 to 8 January 2008 / HD RA, 9 January 2008 to 30 September 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, dated 28 June 2012, indicates the board found the applicant unfit and recommended a combined rating of 30 percent. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None in the available record 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; documents reference Troops to Teacher (TTT) Program; copy of his prior records review (AR20140018547) to include application; second application (AR20160003264) which was administratively closed and returned to the applicant; letters of support; prior DD Form 214; updated DD Form 214; medical cannabis card; letters from US Department of Veterans Affairs which makes reference to the applicant being 60 percent service connected and eligible for benefits. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted 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. 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 "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (drug abuse). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKK" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. 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 a change to his narrative reason for discharge. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the special trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. 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 that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. As a result of his misconduct the applicant was discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions with a narrative reason of misconduct (drug abuse). However, on 3 February 2016, the Army Discharge Review Board after carefully examining the applicant's record of service for the period of service under review, determined the applicant's characterization of service was too harsh based on his length and quality of service, to include the circumstances surrounding the discharge, (i.e., an in-service diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)). It is concluded that other behavioral health issues may have been a causative factor in the misconduct that led to the applicant's discharge. Therefore, after carefully weighing that fact against the severity of the applicant's misconduct, it was determined that there was sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of the applicant's service to general, (under honorable conditions). Accordingly, in a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 February 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions). The Board determined, the reason for the discharge was both proper and equitable, and by a 5-0 voted, voted not to change it. The applicant now seeks relief contending that the description of "drug abuse" along with the general (under honorable conditions) discharge has caused him hardships and disqualified him from some veteran and professional assistance that he would qualify for otherwise. For example, he has experienced discrimination from a Vocational Rehabilitation counselor which prompted a formal complaint and removal from the program. More importantly he has been teaching since February of last year and he is a participant in the troops to teachers program which he was also disqualified from due to the distinction. The money associated with being a part of that program can help support his family and help advance his career as an educator. He has been found eligible to receive his disability compensation and regardless of the increase in that compensation and every office he sees in the VA, explicitly telling him to never show anyone his DD Form 214, he cannot seem to convince anyone that the label placed on him is a total detriment to him. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, as noted previously; the applicant, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the special trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. 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 that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. Furthermore, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The appropriate SPD code and reason to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged for drug offenses is "JKK" and the RE code is 4. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. The applicant's post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with the application and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishments. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of obtaining employment opportunities. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): None were listed on the hearing data sheet. b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None were listed on the hearing data sheet. c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None. 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a travel panel hearing conducted at Scott Air Force Base, IL on 1 March 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the narrative reason for discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service, a prior period of honorable service, post-service accomplishments, the matters surrounding the discharge and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief by changing the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, the narrative reason for separation to Pattern of Misconduct, the separation code to JKA, and the reentry code to RE-3. The board determined the characterization of service 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: No Change c. Change Reason to: Pattern of Misconduct d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JKA / Change to RE code to 3 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 AR20170011084 2