1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 1 May 2015 b. Date Received: 4 May 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, her lapse in judgment embarrassed her chain of command, her unit, and herself. She has learned from this incident and strongly desires to move forward in life. Despite this isolated incident, the applicant believes that she was a good Soldier who received numerous awards for her outstanding work and noteworthy service. The applicant states that, when she was evaluated by the Army Substance Abuse Program, it was determined that she did not have a problem with illegal drugs. She further states that the psychiatrist agreed that the incident was related to her unawareness of her environment and was not an addiction. Since her discharge, the applicant has maintained an outstanding reputation working for the Department of Transportation as a Human Resource Consultant and volunteers part time at the Tumwater Library. Her long-term goals include earning her Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration and to open her own restaurant. An upgrade to her discharge will allow her to continue her schooling. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had a behavioral health condition which was likely mitigating for her offense, marijuana use. According to the electronic medical records, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The records also indicated that the applicant met full criteria for major Depressive Disorder (MDD) with several symptoms overlapping with PTSD while on Active Duty. Because these conditions can be associated with illicit drug use for self-medication, there was likely a nexus between the applicant's marijuana use and her PTSD and MDD. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 July 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service and circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service mitigating behavioral health condition). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to [general, under honorable conditions or honorable]. The Board determined the reason for discharge 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 / Chapter 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 21 July 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 May 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant submitted a valid urine sample during a command directed random urinalysis inspection. The sample was analyzed and tested positive for the drug marijuana (12 December 2013). (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 May 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 20 June 2014 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 27 April 2010 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-4 / 31B10, Military Police / 4 years, 2 months, and 25 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (24 March 2011 – 24 March 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ARCOM, NATO Medal, MUCK, AGCM, NDSM, GWTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Memorandum, dated 23 December 2013, Subject: Lab-Confirmed Positive Urinalysis, reflects the applicant tested positive for marijuana during an Inspection Other (IO) based urinalysis conducted on 12 December 2013. DA Form 8003 (Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment), dated 13 January 2013, reflects the applicant’s commander recommended that she receive education on drugs due to testing positive during a unit urinalysis. FG Article 15, dated 29 January 2014, for wrongfully using marijuana (between on or about 12 November 2013 and 12 December 2013). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $858.00 pay (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling), dated 23 December 2013, for testing positive during a urinalysis test. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 18 March 2014, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. The applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode (per VA evaluation PTSD). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149, dated 1 May 2015; DD Form 214; Enlistment Contract; DD Form 93; ERB; DA Form 8003 (ASAP Enrollment); two character statements not previously submitted during discharge proceedings; and a partial copy of her case separation file. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant works for the Department of Transportation as a Human Resource Consultant and volunteers part time at the Tumwater Library. 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. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members’ discharges. “Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre-existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service.” “Conditions documented in the 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 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. Correction boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service other than honorable conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor 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. Correction Boards will also exercise caution 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 her general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. 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 marred the quality of her service. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that she should have been retained. The applicant contends that she had good service, during which she received numerous awards for her outstanding work and noteworthy service. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant contends the incident that caused her discharge was the only one in her entire Army career. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow her to continue her education. 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 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. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 July 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service and circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service mitigating behavioral health condition). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to [general, under honorable conditions or honorable]. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: NA AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board Legend: 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 BH – Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OMPF - Official Military Personnel File TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police – PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status MST – Military Sexual Trauma RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150008280 1