1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 15 June 2015 b. Date Received: 17 June 2015 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, at the time of his incident he did not feel he was properly informed of his rights or his ability to understand the proceeding. He was returning from vacation and numerous people were in and out of his car and rolling papers were found in the passenger seat and he was the driver. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no mitigating medical or behavioral health condition for the offense (Possession of illegal drug) which led to his separation from the Army. Mental Status Exam from 13 June 2011 indicated diagnosis of Cannabis Abuse which applicant met medical retention standards for. Electronic medical records and Medical History Exam from 22 June 2011, indicated applicants’ history of ASAP treatment and use of Spice in the past. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 August 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (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 b. Date of Discharge: 4 August 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 July 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant violated paragraph 4.r., of 82nd Airborne Division Regulation No. 190-2, by wrongfully possessing "Spice" on (7 April 2011) (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 July 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: NIF / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 2 September 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-4 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 3 years, 9 months and 4 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: ARNG (31 October 2007 - 1 September 2008) / HD e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (21 August 2009 - 21 August 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, ACM-W/2CS, GWTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 7 April 2011, indicates the applicant was under investigation for possessing drug paraphernalia, on post. FG Article 15, dated 13 May 2011, for violating a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4.r., 82nd Airborne Division Regulation Number 190-2, dated 30 November 2010, by wrongfully possessing "Spice" on (7 April 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $733 pay for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. The applicant received two negative counseling statements for engaging in acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 13 June 2009, indicates the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of cannabis abuse. There was no evidence of an emotional or mental disorder of psychiatric significance at this time to warrant disposition through medical channels; and he was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. DA Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), dated 22 June 2011, shows the applicant suffered occasionally from anxiety and stress. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 15 June 2015; his application indicated he submitted police reports; however, no documents were attached. 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. 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 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. 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 his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant’s record of service and 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 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 and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of his separation. 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, at the time of his incident he did not feel he was properly informed of his rights or his ability to understand the proceeding. The record of evidence shows on 12 July 2011, the applicant was given the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and declined the opportunity to do so. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant further contends, he was returning from vacation and numerous people were in and out of his car and rolling papers were found in the passenger seat and he was the driver. There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. 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 3 August 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change 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 AR20150010841 5