IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 September 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140012621 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and the Discussion and Recommendation that follows, the Board noted that the government introduced a document into the discharge process revealing the applicant had self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for substance abuse. This is limited use information, as defined in AR 600-85. Use of this information mandates award of an honorable discharge. Accordingly, the Board voted to change the characterization of service to honorable. The Board found the narrative reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and voted not to change it. Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from under other than honorable conditions to honorable, and a change to his narrative reason for discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he served honorably from 2003-2010. The applicant contends that in 2007, he sought MH care due to noticeable behavioral changes, especially with anger, which was later related to his MOS as a emergency room medic at Brooke Army Hospital, San Antonio, TX. He was diagnosed with PTSD, and generalized anxiety after his deployment to Afghanistan from 2010-2011. He was not being improperly cared for, so he self-referred to mental health, and requested a medical evaluation board. He had two episodes of misconduct for (physical assault on a junior enlisted Soldier, in which he received a FG Article 15). He self-referred himself, started counseling, and requested an MEB in January 2012. In May 2012, he failed an urinalysis test, resulting in the receiving of another FG Article 15, revoking his orders for a MEB, and initiation of chapter proceedings. 3. The applicant believes that if he had been diagnosed earlier, provided the proper care via mental health, with the appropriate medications for his illnesses, he would not have self-medicated, and the two misconduct episodes would never have occurred. He would have been medically boarded out of the military. He also contends he informed his MH physicians, on numerous occasions, that his medications were not working; only to have the medications dosages increased and maxed out. He contends he is a combat veteran of OEF/OIF with seven years of honorable service, five years as a NCO with exemplary performance, and evaluations, and thinks this should be taken into consideration. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 14 July 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 3 November 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Chapter 14 Paragraph 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: 7th HQ, 3rd Bn, 4th IN, Baumholder, GE, APO AE f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 26 May 2010, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 5 months, 8 days h. Total Service: 9 years, 27 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: RA-031007-061018/HD RA-061019-090512/HD RA-090513-100525/HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-6 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 68W10, Health Care Specialist m. GT Score: 114 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia, Germany, Korea p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (101206-111005) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-2, AAM-2, AGCM-2, ACM-w/2CS, NDSM GWOTSM, KDSM, NPDR, ASR, OSR-3, NATOMDL r. Administrative Separation Board: Yes s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 October 2003, for a period of 4 years. He reenlisted on 19 October 2006, for 3 years, 13 May 2009, for 2 years, and again on 26 May 2010, for 4 years. He was 25 years old at the time of reenlistment and a high school graduate. His record indicates he served in Afghanistan, Korea, and Germany; achieved the rank of SSG/E-6; and received several awards to include two ARCOMs, two AAMs, and two AGCMs. He was serving in Germany when his separation was initiated. He completed 9 years and 27 days of military service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 1 August 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs for receiving a FG Article 15 (120702), for wrongfully possessing heroin, and drug paraphernalia (120516). 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. On 2 August 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions, and did not submit a statement on his behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army, and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 17 August 2012, the applicant's separation packet was referred to a standing enlisted administrative separation board to determine whether the applicant should be separated from the Army prior to the expiration of his term of service, under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2) for abuse of illegal drugs. 5. On 22 August 2012, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights. 6. On 1 October 2012, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 7. On 16 October 2012, the separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 8. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 3 November 2012, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, for misconduct (drug abuse), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKK and an RE code of 4. 9. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. There is a positive urinalysis report contained in the record coded; CO (Competence for Duty/Command Direct/Fitness for duty), 16 May 2012, for morphine. 2. Article 15, imposed on 2 July 2012, for wrongfully possessing an unknown quantity of heroin (120516). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4, forfeiture of a half months pay for two months, extra duty for 40 days, a oral reprimand (FG). 3. The unit commander's report, dated 2 August 12, indicates the applicant received an Article 15 on 2 August 2011 for unlawfully striking a Soldier in the face with a closed fist (assault consummated by battery). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5 and forfeiture of $600.00 pay per month for two months (FG). 4. Chain of Command's recommendations memorandum, dated 2 August 2012, whereas the unit commander makes reference to the applicant having self-referred himself for cocaine while stationed at Fort Hood, TX a couple years ago. 5. Three negative counseling statements dated between 17 May 2012 and 13 June 2012, for possible possession of an illegal substance and for being flagged pending UCMJ action for being in possession of suspected heroin and several pieces of drug paraphernalia. 6. A CID Report dated 23 August 2012, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongful use of morphine, wrongful distribution of heroin, wrongful use of heroin, wrongful possession of methadone, wrongful distribution of methadone, failure to obey general order, wrongful possession of heroin and wrongful use of codeine. 7. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 June 2012, which indicates the applicant was screened for PTSD using the PCL-M. The applicant was being considered for a medical board. The applicant was screened for TBI using the DVBIC TBI Screening Tool. The applicant was negative for TBI and did not warrant further assessment at the time. The Board Certified Clinical Psychologist Chief of Behavioral Medicine determined the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and had the mental capacity to participate in the board proceedings. The applicant did have a history of being deployed to a place of imminent danger. The applicant was not at the time displaying any PTSD or TBI symptoms that would better explain the behavior or reason for the administrative separation recommendations. The applicant was not deemed a safety risk at the time and was returned to duty with his escort. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriated by his command. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided an online application, dated 8 July 2014, five NCO Evaluation Report's dated between 1 January 2007 and 31 August 2010, which rated the applicant overall as "Among the Best, " and "Fully Capable, " for the period 1 January 2007 through 24 July 2007; certificates of promotion to specialist and sergeant; certificates for award of the ARCOM (3), AAM, and the AGCM, certificates of achievements/appreciation (8); oath of reenlistments (3), certificates for honorable discharges (3), completion of the Emergency Medical Technician Basic Course, Health Care Specialist Course, Department of the Army Substance Abuse Course, national disaster life support instructor and basic disaster life support instructor; and a certificate acknowledging his affiliation with the United States Army Medical Department Regiment. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None provide with the application. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. 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. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, 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. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual. 3. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. 4. 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). 5. 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. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, the issues and documents submitted with the application, the characterization of service appears to be improper. 2. The record confirms the government introduced a document into the discharge process revealing the applicant had self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for substance abuse. This is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85. Use of this information mandates award of an honorable discharge. 3. The records show the proper discharge and separation procedures were not followed in this case. 4. Therefore, the characterization of service being improper, the analyst recommends the Board grant partial relief by upgrading the applicant’s characterization to honorable. 5. The applicant also requested his narrative reason for discharge be changed. However, 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, paragraph 14-12c(2), for drug offenses. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. 6. Therefore, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and remains both proper and equitable. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 22 September 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? No Counsel: None Board Vote: Character Change: 5 No Change: 0 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: Yes Change Characterization to: Honorable Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: No Change Change RE Code to: No Change Grade Restoration to: NA Other: NA Legend: AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record FG - Field Grade IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable SCM- Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial CG - Company Grade Article 15 HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge CID - Criminal investigation Department MP – Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20140012621 Page 2 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1