1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 20 October 2015 b. Date Received: 26 October 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, she was told her discharge would be for not having a family care plan, but was subsequently told it was for misconduct. The applicant was discharged for something she had been punished for and cannot understand why she was punished for the same thing twice. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available at the time, the applicant has a Behavioral Health Disorder which is mitigating for her misconduct. The VA has found the applicant to be 30 percent service connected for PTSD related to her military service in Iraq. As PTSD is associated with the use of illicit drugs to self-medicate symptoms, there is a nexus between her PTSD and the use of amphetamine. Both the electronic military and VA records were reviewed. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 February 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include her combat service, and the circumstances surrounding her discharge (i.e. VA diagnosed PTSD, service related) mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changes to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 17 February 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 31 January 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant received a FG Article 15 on 21 July 2010 for wrongful use of D-amphetamine, a controlled substance. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 1 February 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 February 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 September 2007 / 4 years, 20 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 3 years, 4 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (17 November 2008 to 16 November 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, ICM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 24 May 2010, reflects the applicant tested positive for D-Amphetamine (DAMP) during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 17 May 2010. The applicant received a negative counseling statement dated, 4 June 2010, for testing positive for D-amphetamine and disobeying a lawful order. CID Report of Investigation, dated 25 June 2010, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongful use of drugs. FG Article 15, dated 28 July 2010, for wrongful use of D-Amphetamine (between 14 May 2010 and 17 May 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $906 pay, and extra duty for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 January 2011, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features-non service disqualifying. She was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. VA Rating Decision letter, dated 10 July 2015, indicates the applicant was service connected for other specified trauma-and-stressor-related disorder (claimed as post traumatic stress disorder) is granted with an evaluation of 30 percent effective June 29, 2014. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; VA Rating Decision letter; DD Form 214; and OMPF documents. 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 allows for separation for misconduct with paragraph 14-1 allowing for separating personnel because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absence without leave. Paragraph 14-2 states action will be taken to separate a Soldier for misconduct when it is clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him/her as a Soldier further effort is not likely to succeed; rehabilitation is impracticable or the Soldier is not amenable to rehabilitation. Paragraph 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of her 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 her service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of her 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, such that she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending, she was told her discharge would be for not having a family care plan, but was subsequently told it was for misconduct. 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 she was discharged for something she had been punished for and it was double jeopardy. The applicant stated in her self-authored statement she sought some legal guidance from the JAG office. She explained the situation and wondered why she was initially being discharged due to not being able to provide a family care plan, to being discharged for something she had already been punished for. She believes it was a double jeopardy situation. The lawyer she spoke with told her that the command was within their purview. 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 15 February 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include her combat service, and the circumstances surrounding her discharge (i.e. VA diagnosed PTSD, service related) mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changes to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JKN / No Change to RE code f. Restore Grade 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 AR20150017331 1