IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 15 November 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220010674


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  

*	upgrade of her general under honorable conditions discharge to honorable
*	change narrative reason for separation to “mental health”

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from The Armed Forces 
of the United States)
*	Medical documents


FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. 
Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, during her time in service, she learned a lot and carry 
those seven values with her until this day. Although she was appreciative and grateful 
for the opportunity the Army gave her, she suffered from major depression and anxiety.

3.  The applicant provides five pages of her health record, dated between 14 July 2017 
and 28 September 2017.

4.  A review of the applicant’s service record shows:

   a.	She enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 September 2016.

   b.	The complete facts and circumstances surrounding her separation are not 
available for review. However, on 5 January 2018, the separation approving authority 
directed her separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 
635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 14-12c (2), 
misconduct - abuse of illegal drugs, with her service being characterized as general 
under honorable conditions. 

   c.	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflects she 
was discharged on 25 January 2018, under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 
14-12c(2), misconduct (drug abuse), with a character of service of general under 
honorable conditions. She served 1 year, 4 months, and 14 days of net active service 
this period.

5.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board 
(ADRB) for review of her discharge within the board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 
However, based on her request to change the narrative reason to reflect “mental 
health,” it was determined by the Military Review Board Deputy that this case would not 
be considered by the ADRB.

6.  A medical advisory will be conducted during the Board proceedings.

7.  AR 635-200 states, action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct such 
as drug abuse.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge 
under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Drug Abuse). 

8.  Hagel Memorandum, dated 3 September 2014, states liberal consideration will be 
given in petitions for changes in characterization of service-to-service treatment records 
entries which document one or more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of 
PTSD or related conditions.  Special consideration will be given to VA determinations 
which documents PTSD or PTSD related conditions connected to military service.  In 
cases in which PTSD or PTSD related conditions 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 under other than honorable 
conditions characterization of service.

9. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and her 
service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency 
determination guidance.


10.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

    a.  Background: The applicant is requesting an upgrade of her general under 
honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a change in the narrative reason for 
separation to “mental health”. She contends other mental health condition mitigates her 
discharge. 
    b.  The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMR 
Record of Proceedings (ROP). Below is a summary of information pertinent to this 
advisory: 
*	Applicant enlisted in the RA on 12 September 2016.
*	The complete facts and circumstances surrounding her separation are not 
available for review.
*	On 5 January 2018, the separation approving authority directed her separation 
from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active 
Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 14-12c (2), misconduct - 
abuse of illegal drugs, with her service being characterized as general under 
honorable conditions.
*	Her DD Form 214 reflects she was discharged on 25 January 2018, under the 
provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2), misconduct (drug abuse), with a 
character of service of general under honorable conditions. 

    c.  Review of Available Records Including Medical:
The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor reviewed this 
case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s completed DD Form 293, her 
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), medical documents, DD 214 and documents 
from her service record and separation packet. The VA electronic medical record and 
DoD health record were reviewed through Joint Longitudinal View (JLV). Lack of citation 
or discussion in this section should not be interpreted as lack of consideration. 
The applicant states, that during her time in service, she learned a lot and carries those 
values with her until this day. Although she was appreciative and grateful for the 
opportunity the Army gave her, she suffered from major depression and anxiety and 
used marijuana to cope with her issues. The applicant reports that being away from her 
friends and family, while coping with her mental health issues, amplified her difficulties 
and she takes responsibility for not seeking mental health services sooner since this 
might have prevented her discharge. 
    d.  The applicant submitted health records from her time in service that indicate she 
was treated for anxiety and depression at the Embedded Behavioral Health Service at 
Ft. Hood. An intake assessment dated 17 July 2017, indicates she sought treatment for 
her on-going symptoms of depression and anxiety that she reported having since 
childhood. The applicant further disclosed a history of childhood sexual trauma as well 
as multiple other traumatic incidents.  At the time, she reported a worsening of 
symptoms since her enlistment into the Army, with her symptoms fluctuating from 
feeling numb "like a zombie" or "overwhelmed with emotions." 

    e.  The applicant is 80% service connected, including 70% for chronic adjustment 
disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. In a C and P evaluation dated 13 
March 2018 the applicant was diagnosed with chronic adjustment disorder with mixed 
anxiety and depressed mood as well as Cannabis Use Disorder, mild. The evaluator 
noted the applicant uses cannabis to self-medicate her symptoms of adjustment 
disorder. The C and P evaluation notes the applicant’s report of experiencing both 
sexism and racism in her unit while in the military, this appeared to exacerbate her 
behavioral health symptoms. The applicant reported while in-service being treated with 
antidepressant medication as well as attending a half-day treatment for chemical 
dependency at Cedar Crest Behavioral Health for about 3 weeks. She stopped using 
cannabis during treatment but resumed using cannabis as soon as the treatment ended.
    f.  After review of all available documentation, it is the opinion of the Agency 
Behavioral Health Advisor that there is evidence the applicant had a behavioral health 
condition during military service that would mitigate her discharge, if it was solely based 
on substance use. 
Kurta Questions:
    (1)  Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience that 
may excuse or mitigate a discharge? Yes. The applicant asserts a mitigating condition. 

    (2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes, the 
applicant self-asserts depression and anxiety during her time in service and she is 
currently service connected for chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and 
depressed mood.   

    (3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. 
However, given the lack of available information regarding the specific circumstances of 
her discharge, this advisor is cautiously providing an opine regarding mitigation based 
on the understanding that her misconduct was based on her substance use, not some 
other form of substance-based misconduct such as sales or distribution. The applicant 
provided service treatment records that indicate mental health care while in service for 
depressive symptoms and anxiety.  In addition, the applicant is 70% service connected 
for chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Given the 
nexus between depression/anxiety and self-medicating with substances, her BH 
condition provides mitigation for the use of substances to cope with her symptoms. 

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found 
within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board 
carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support 
of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy 
and regulation, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal and clemency 
determinations requests for upgrade of her characterization of service.  Upon review of 
the applicant’s petition, available military records and medical review, the Board 
considered the advising official opine finding there is evidence the applicant had a 
behavioral health condition during military service that would mitigate her discharge, if it 
was solely based on substance use. The Board noted the opine, however, given the 
lack of available information regarding the specific circumstances of her discharge, the 
advisor is cautiously providing an opine regarding mitigation based on the 
understanding that her misconduct was based on her substance use.

2.  The Board found, during the applicant’s 1year 4 months and 14 days of service there 
is no indication of the applicant being challenged with knowing the difference between 
right and wrong. The Board determined the applicant provided insufficient evidence of 
post-service accomplishments or character letters of support to attest to her honorable 
conduct that might have mitigated the misconduct that resulted in the discharge 
characterization. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s post service medical 
documentation that indicate mental health care while in service for depressive 
symptoms and anxiety. The Board determined the applicant record is absent the facts 
and circumstances surrounding her separation which limits the Board to know if an error 
or injustice occurred based on her drug use. 

3.  Furthermore, the Board found liberal consideration was afforded the applicant who 
was discharged for misconduct (drug abuse) and was provided an under honorable 
conditions (General) characterization of service. The Board found based on the 
absence of evidence surround the facts and circumstances, there was insufficient 
evidence of in-service mitigation to overcome the misconduct. The Board agreed the 
applicant’s discharge characterization is warranted as she did not meet the standards of 
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel to receive an 
honorable discharge.  Evidence of record shows, at the time of separation, 
documentation supports the narrative reason for separation properly identified on the 
DD Form 214.  As such, the Board determined under liberal consideration changes to 
the applicant’s narrative reason are not warranted. Based on this, the Board denied 
relief.

?
BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:X	:X	:X	DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or 
injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient 
as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned


	 
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the 
Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.


REFERENCES:

1.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), sets forth 
the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

   a.	Paragraph 3-7a states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and 
entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is 
appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards 
of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so 
meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
   
   b.	Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under 
honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is 
satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  
   
   c.	Chapter 14, of the version in effect at the time, established policy and prescribed 
procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories included minor 
disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and 
convictions by civil authorities.  It provided that action would be taken to separate a 
member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was 
impracticable or was unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable 
conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  
However, the separation authority could direct an honorable discharge if merited by the 
Soldier's overall record.

2.  On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge 
Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 
(BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical 
considerations, and mitigating factors, when taking action on applications from former 
service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions, and 
who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional 
representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate 
to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service.

3.  On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and 
BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharges due 
in whole, or in part, to:  mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; 
sexual harassment.  Boards were directed to give liberal consideration to Veterans 
petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part to 
those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and 
criteria, and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in 
evidence as potential mitigation for that misconduct which led to the discharge.
4.  On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of 
Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency 
determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal 
sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. 
However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-
martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may 
be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. This guidance does not mandate 
relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their 
equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief based on equity, 
injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, 
external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, 
mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a 
relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. Changes to the 
narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely 
on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, 
retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that 
might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or 
had the upgraded service characterization.

5.  Section 1556 of Title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of the Army to 
ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency 
(ARBA) be provided with a copy of any correspondence and communications (including 
summaries of verbal communications) to or from the Agency with anyone outside the 
Agency that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as 
authorized by statute. ARBA medical advisory opinions and reviews are authored by 
ARBA civilian and military medical and behavioral health professionals and are 
therefore internal agency work product. Accordingly, ARBA does not routinely provide 
copies of ARBA Medical Office recommendations, opinions (including advisory 
opinions), and reviews to Army Board for Correction of Military Records applicants 
(and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication.


//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20220010674


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1