IN THE CASE OF: 
 
  BOARD DATE: 12 September 2023 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230002421 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 7 August 2017 to show: 
 
• an upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service 

• a change in his narrative reason for separation and the corresponding separation program designator (SPD) code, presumably more favorable 

• a change in his reentry (RE) code, presumably more favorable 


 
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) 

• Certification, Basic Life Support Provider, American Heart Association, dated 


27 February 2018 
• Certificate of Completion, Occupational Therapy Assistant Program, Keiser University, undated 

• Certification, Occupational Therapy Assistant, National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy, Inc., dated 31 July 2019 

• Bachelor of Science, Health Science, Keiser University, dated 25 October 2020 


 
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, he is requesting these changes to increase his growth in his career as an occupational therapist and to exercise his rights as an American. He has more than proven himself as an outstanding tax-paying citizen and combat veteran. His post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) claim is still pending at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He notes PTSD and traumatic brain injury (TBI) on his application as mitigating factors related to his claim. 
3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 May 2015 for a 3-year period. The highest rank he attained was specialist/E-4. He was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman). 
 
4.  He deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Freedom’s Sentinel on or about 3 June 2016. 
 
5.  The applicant's record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge. However, the separation authority approved the applicant’s recommended discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), Chapter 9, by reason of alcohol or drug abuse rehabilitation failure, on 18 July 2017. He further directed the applicant be issued an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service. 
 
6.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 7 August 2017. His DD Form 214 confirms his service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general). He was credited with 2 years, 3 months, and 4 days of net active service with service in Afghanistan from 4 June 2016 to 10 February 2017. His awards include but are not limited to the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with one campaign star, the Army Commendation Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Medal. His DD form 214 includes the following entries: 
 
• item 26 (Separation Code) – JPC 

• item 27 (Reentry Code) – 4 

• item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – Drug Rehabilitation Failure 


 
7.  The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his characterization of service on 8 May 2019 and 28 June 2022, respectively. After careful consideration, the Board denied his request upon finding the separation both proper and equitable. 
 
8.  The applicant provides documents that support his post-service accomplishments as an occupational therapy assistant. 
 
9.  Regulatory guidance states enlisted Soldiers discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, by reason of alcohol or other drug abuse, will receive a service characterization of honorable or under honorable conditions unless the Soldier was in entry-level status. 
 
10.  The Board should consider the applicant's overall record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 
 
11.  MEDICAL REVIEW: 
 
    a.  The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting reconsideration of his previous requests to upgrade his characterization of service from under honorable conditions (general).  He also requests the narrative reason for separation, the corresponding separation program designator (SPD) code, and his reentry (RE) code be changed to presumably more favorable options. He contends he experienced a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and PTSD, which mitigates his misconduct. 
    b.  The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP). Pertinent to this advisory are the following: 1) The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 May 2015; 2) The applicant deployed to Afghanistan from 4 June 2016-10 February 2017; 3) The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army; 4) The applicant was discharged on 7 August 2017, Chapter 9, by reason of Drug Rehabilitation Failure, with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge; 5) On 8 May 2019 and 28 June 2022, the Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge and changes to his DD214. 
    c.  The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s military service and medical records. The Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) and VA’s Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) were also examined. 
 
    d.  The applicant asserts he was experiencing TBI and PTSD as a result of his deployment to Afghanistan. The applicant was initially seen at Substance Use Disorder Clinical Care (SUDDC) on 17 April 2017 after testing positive for marijuana on a urinalysis (UA).  He stated he used marijuana one time, and he was diagnosed with unspecified cannabis use disorder. He was formally evaluated for a substance abuse disorder on 19 April 2017. He denied experiencing symptoms related to a TBI or a mental health condition, including PTSD. He was diagnosed with an alcohol use disorder, but this diagnosis was related to his reported history of alcohol use prior to joining the Army. The applicant denied current abuse of alcohol, and he did not see a need to enter substance abuse or behavioral health treatment. However, he was referred to substance abuse treatment due to his positive UA for cannabis. The applicant continued in substance abuse treatment for a few additional sessions, but on 04 May 2017, it was noted he had another positive UA for methamphetamine (i.e. ecstasy). He was referred to Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Training (ADAPT) later in May 2017. There was insufficient record the applicant reported symptoms of a TBI or a mental health condition including PTSD in his remaining time on active service. He was consistently diagnosed with alcohol abuse, uncomplicated by his substance abuse providers till he discontinued treatment on 16 June 2017.  
    e.  A review of JLV provided evidence the applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD by the VA on 23 March 2023 by a clinical psychologist. However, the applicant does not receive service-connected disability for PTSD or a TBI at this time.  
    f.  Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant had condition or experience that mitigated his misconduct. Specifically, there is insufficient information available in the official record concerning the events which led to the applicant’s discharge to determine if PTSD or a TBI would be considered, under Liberal Consideration, possible mitigating conditions. 
Kurta Questions 
    (1)  Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A, there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant had condition or experience that mitigated his misconduct. Specifically, there is insufficient information available in the official record concerning the events which led to the applicant’s discharge to determine if PTSD or a TBI would be considered, under Liberal Consideration, possible mitigating conditions. 
    (2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service?  N/A 
    (3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A 
 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
 
After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The facts and circumstances surrounding his separation are not available. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged from active duty for alcohol rehabilitation failure with a general discharge. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 
 
 a.  The Board reviewed and was persuaded by the medical official’s finding insufficient evidence to support the applicant had condition or experience that mitigated his misconduct. Specifically, there is insufficient information available in the official record concerning the events which led to the applicant’s discharge to determine if PTSD or a TBI would be considered. Additionally, although he provides documents that support his post-service accomplishments as an occupational therapy assistant, the Board noted that he did not complete his enlistment commitment and still received a 
general discharge. The Board determined a general discharge seems appropriate in his case as his service did not rise to the level required for an honorable discharge. 
 
 b.  The applicant’s narrative reason for separation was assigned based on the fact that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 9 of AR 635-200 for drug rehabilitation failure. Absent such failure, there was no fundamental reason to separate him. The underlying reason for his separation was his drug rehabilitation failure. Such discharge carries a Separation Code of JPC which as a corresponding RE Code of 4.  
 
BOARD VOTE: 
 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
 
: : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
 
xx: xx: xx: 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. 
 
  9/12/2023

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.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or 
injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 
 
2.  Section 1556 of Title 10, U.S. 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. 
 
3.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard. Table 3-1 provides a list of RE codes. 
 
• RE code "1" applies to Soldiers completing their term of active service, who are considered qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met 

• RE code "2" is no longer in use but applied to Soldiers separated for the convenience of the government, when reenlistment is not contemplated, who are fully qualified for enlistment/reenlistment 

• RE code "3" applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, whose disqualification is waivable – they are ineligible unless a waiver is granted 

• RE code "4" applies to Soldiers separated from their last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification 


 
4.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 
 
 a.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that 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.  Chapter 9 contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging Soldiers because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to 
the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for alcohol/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. Nothing in this chapter prevents separation of a Soldier who has been referred to such a program under any other provisions of this regulation. Initiation of separation proceedings is required for Soldiers designated as alcohol/drug rehabilitation failures. The service of Soldiers discharged under this chapter will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in entry-level status. 
 
5.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the separation codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It states that the separation code "JPC" is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, by reason of drug rehabilitation failure. 
 
6.  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 Discharge Review Boards (DRB) and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR) when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to:  mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder; traumatic brain injury; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Standards for review should rightly consider the unique nature of these cases and afford each veteran a reasonable opportunity for relief even if the sexual assault or sexual harassment was unreported, or the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years later. Boards are to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on those conditions or experiences. 
 
7.  On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military DRBs and 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.  
 
 a.  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 on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, Boards 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. 
 
 b.  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. 
 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//