1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 September 2015 b. Date Received: 23 September 2015 c. Counsel: None 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, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to move on from his past, contribute increasingly and meaningfully to society in his new career, and achieve the things he knows he is capable of. The applicant contends he joined the Army to serve his country as a physician through the Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) and understands why he received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge during an administrative separation in July 2009. However, he believes his discharge represents the aberration of his professional life, and make for his discharge being inequitable. His discharge was handled in ways that he thinks were improper; in sum, these actions has subsequently precluded him the ability to practice medicine in any capacity. He believes his discharge was improper as a result of improper guidance during separation proceedings, improper protection of his private health information, and improper reporting of his protected health information to the National Practitioner Data Base (NPDB). He contends he made some terrible decisions while on active duty and should have sought treatment years earlier. He believes part of his discharge was executed improperly and inequitably, with subsequent military administrative actions unjust and disproportionate to his misconducts. But he has matured from these experiences and held himself accountable. He contends he salvaged his civilian professional career, he has spent many of the years since his discharge attempting to rectify his problems, through both legal and medical pathways, and by demonstrating recovery for the depression, PTSD, and addiction he struggled with while on active duty, to no avail. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant, a physician, had AHLTA diagnoses of ADHD, Alcohol Abuse, Amphetamine Dependence, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Chronic Major Depression, Depression, Major Depression (moderate), Occupational Problem, Psychoactive Substance Dependence Combination of Drugs in Remission, and Unspecified Psychoactive Substance Abuse. The JLV showed 70% VA SC disability rating. VA Problem List diagnoses include Recurrent Major Depressive Disorder- moderate (2017), ADHD (2016), Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2015), Other Drug Abuse in Remission (2012), PTSD (2012), Adjustment Disorder (2010), and Depression (2010). Outpatient Encounter notes from the VA were also using Alcohol and Cannabis Dependence in 2010, Cannabis Dependence in 2011. His drug use predated the army. In a 12 July 2011 note, he admitted he smoked marijuana daily in medical school but stopped, for a time, when he entered the military. PTSD does not appear to have been used as a Primary Reason for Outpatient Encounter note available in JLV or AHLTA. Depression and ADHD appear to be the central non- substance disorders for this applicant's case. The applicant has also complained improper reporting to the National Practitioner Data Base; however, the Director of ARBA medical has confirmed that these notification are only sent form the Office of the Surgeon General after vetting and signed approval of the Surgeon General. An AHLTA note of 14 July 2009 also indicated he would have to repay the Army $50,000 because of his early discharge. The applicant's mental health conditions do not mitigate his misconduct. His use of substances predated entry into Army. Further, he was also fraternizing and smoking marijuana in his own quarters with two SPC soldiers during his deployment. This is not mitigated. The applicant was seen by ASAP on 21 July 2009. He also had an ADAPT referral on 07 January 2009. He had a clinical review board in 2009. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 23 March 2018, 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Paragraph 4-2b / JNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 22 July 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 April 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was required to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2a for substandard performance of duty, paragraph 4-2b for misconduct and moral or professional dereliction, and paragraph 4-2c for derogatory information; specifically, under paragraph 4-2a(1) for a downward trend in overall performance resulting in an unacceptable record of efficiency, or a consistent record of mediocre service, paragraph 4-2a(2) for failure to keep pace or to progress with contemporaries, as demonstrated by a low record of efficiency, or a consistent record of mediocre service, paragraph 4-2a(5) for failure to properly perform assignments commensurate with an officer's grade and experience, paragraph 4-2b(11) for commission of an act of personal misconduct involving drugs, and paragraph 4-2c(1) for punishment under the UCMJ, Article 15. He was notified of the following reasons for elimination: On 31 December 2008, he was detained by Military Police in COB Adder, Iraq for possession of marijuana and suspicion of involvement with marijuana; In January 2009, the Multi-National Division Center Division Surgeon conducted a formal investigation of the medical records and care he provided and found he was unreliable, ineffective, and incapable of practicing medicine on an independent basis; From September 2008 to December 2008, he received several counselings regarding his poor work performance and behavior; specifically, he was counseled for repeatedly being late to work and absent from duty shifts and meetings, and not performing his duties to standard; and On 4 February 2009, he received a General Officer Article 15 for violation of General Order Number 1, use of a controlled substance, and fraternization. He was found guilty of violating Articles 92, 112a, and 134, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge (4) Legal Consultation Date: The applicant submitted an undated rebuttal statement (5) Administrative Separation Board: None (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 4 June 2009, The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board reviewed the Probationary Officer Elimination Case on the applicant and recommended he be eliminated from the US Army with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). On 12 June 2009, The Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards), approved the Board's recommendation to involuntarily separate the applicant from the US Army based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b, derogatory information paragraph 4-2c and substandard performance paragraph 4-2a, with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: OAD, 14 June 2006 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / College Graduate / None c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 62B, Field Surgeon / 6 years, 9 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: Appointed 2LT / USAR, 17 October 2002 / NA USAR, 17 October 2002 to 17 May 2006 / NA Appointed CPT / USAR, 18 May 2006 USAR, 18 May 2006 to 13 June 2006 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (27 May 2008 to 14 February 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007, Fully Qualified 4 September 2007 to 26 May 2008, Fully Qualified 3 March 2009 to 22 July 2009, Fully Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 6 January 2009, which shows the applicant was a subject of investigation for general order 1A (pornography) (on post); controlled substance violation, marijuana possession of marijuana (Article 112a, UCMJ) wrongful use of a controlled substance (Article 112a, UCMJ) GO, Article 15, dated 4 February 2009, for failing to obey a lawful general order by wrongfully using marijuana, wrongfully using marijuana while receiving special pay, and knowingly fraternizing with Specialist (E-4) J.C.C and R.S.B., enlisted persons, by smoking marijuana together in his containerized housing unit, in violation of the custom of the United States Army that officers shall not fraternize with enlisted persons on terms of military equality on 31 December 2008. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $2474 per month for two months. The applicant received numerous negative counseling's statements for various acts of misconduct i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF; however, medical documents submitted by the applicant show the applicant had problems with depression, anxiety disorder NOS; attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder; and chronic major depression. It was also noted in the documents that the applicant had been diagnoses with Axis I for anxiety disorder NOS, ADHD, amphetamine abuse and Axis IV for occupational stressors. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; resume; letters of recommendation; character references from military peers; active duty medical records; 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service 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 a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment 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 characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors 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. Caution shall be exercised 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, 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. Furthermore, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, the applicant compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a commissioned officer, 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. 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 he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to move on from his past, contribute increasingly meaningfully to society in his new career, and achieve the things he know he is capable of. The applicant contends he joined the Army to serve his country as a physician through the Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) and understands why he received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge during an administrative separation in July 2009. However, he believes his discharge represents the aberration of his professional life, and makes for his discharge being inequitable. His discharge was handled in ways that he thinks were improper; in sum, these actions have subsequently precluded him the ability to practice medicine in any capacity. He believes his discharge was improper as a result of improper guidance during separation proceedings, improper protection of his private health information, and improper reporting of his protected health information to the National Practitioner Data Base (NPDB). He contends he made some terrible decisions while on active duty and should have sought treatment years earlier. He believes part of his discharge was executed improperly and inequitably, with subsequent military administrative actions unjust and disproportionate to his misconducts. But he has matured from these experiences and held himself accountable. He contends he salvaged his civilian professional career, he has spent many of the years since his discharge attempting to rectify his problems, through both legal and medical pathways, and by demonstrating recovery for the depression, PTSD, and addiction he struggles with while on active duty, to no avail. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, the applicant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of government regularity through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his discharge was improper or equitable. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. It was noted in the medical documents submitted by the applicant that he had problems with post-traumatic disorder, depression, anxiety disorder NOS; attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder; chronic major depression, and had been diagnoses with Axis I for anxiety disorder NOS, ADHD, amphetamine abuse and Axis IV for occupational stressors. However, the available medical evidence is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. Further, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 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 23 March 2018, 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/Issue new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD Code to: No Change f. Change RE Code to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer 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 NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150016362 3