1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 November 2015 b. Date Received: 13 November 2015 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant through counsel seeks relief contending, in effect, the Army failed to support his rehabilitative efforts and treat his medical and emotional issues, instead abandoned him to his own self-medicating devices. Counsel contends that procedural errors existed associated with and preceding the discharge and the rights of the applicant were prejudiced. The applicant's use of marijuana was an isolated incident. The applicant's family and personal problems should be considered as extenuating and mitigating to the reason for the discharge. The recommendation by his unit commander was capricious and constituted an abuse of discretion by a commanding officer because he did not take into account of the applicant's capability to serve with rehabilitation. Counsel states that the applicant wants to pursue his education, which he is unable to do without the financial benefits that would be accorded him if his discharged had been on an honorable basis. In addition, counsel states that the current nature of the applicant's discharge puts him at a disadvantage with some potential employers who reject job applicants with less than an honorable discharge. The record indicates the applicant had a prior records review in 2013. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant has a complex psychiatric history. AHLTA notes indicated diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, as early as 2009, and Alcohol Abuse and Dependence, Anxiety Disorder, Cannabis Abuse and Depression. He also suffered a combat-related concussion when a vehicle he was in hit an IED. His brain wound led to his developing post-concussive syndrome, though his TBI was not so severe as to prevent him from completing his deployment from February 2010 to 2011 in Afghanistan with the 101st Airborne during which he earned a CAB and Purple Heart. His MOS is 13F10. AHLTA did reference one visit for PTSD; however, when checked, the session did NOT show a PTSD diagnosis. Instead, it was a visit related to his post-concussive syndrome. The entry of PTSD was apparently a clerical error. Nevertheless, when still in the Army, there is a note from September 2011 in which he mentions to a provider that he was standing next to a peer when a sniper shot dead a peer standing next him with a bullet to the head. He mentioned other potential traumata as well. He said of the sniper episode that it gave him something to think about. When he returned from deployment to Afghanistan, he was stationed in Germany near Nurnberg. He began to drink at an unprecedented level, according to records, and a psychiatrist referred him to ASAP for treatment of his alcoholism. To give a sense of the excessiveness of the applicant's drinking, in one drinking bout, he described himself as drinking 26 shots of rum in a club in Nurnberg. He passed out near the club where he did this binge drinking. His unit gave him a counseling as a result. The applicant was to continue to struggle with drinking, and began to use cannabis, or at least had one positive test for it. It is apt here note that the JLV has records showing him as being VA rated as 80 percent service-connected disabled, with diagnoses that included PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder. The depression had manifested itself, per a report in his pre-discharge physical on 16 August 2012, when he told the provider he had attempted to kill himself in April 2012. He also had an AHLTA diagnosis of depression. In any event, drinking to calm oneself is not uncommon in persons with PTSD or for many other psychiatric disorders. His pre-discharge Mental Status Exam on 12 July 2012 only diagnosed him with Cannabis Abuse and Alcohol Dependence. It noted he screened negative for PTSD. He was accordingly cleared for discharge. Despite the absence of a justified PTSD diagnosis and negative screens in his AHLTA record, the totality of his record and notes is consistent with his PTSD having been masked by his depression and dependence on alcohol. Accordingly, I believe he does meet criteria for having his misconduct mitigated as being epiphenomena of his at least developing PTSD as well as pain and TBI. The chief difficulty is whether this mitigation suffices to raise his General Discharge to an Honorable Discharge. His mental health records would be consistent with the reasonability of such an upgrade. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 March 2017, 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 service, to include his combat service, and circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. severe family matters, in-service diagnosis of TBI, post service diagnosis of service-connected PTSD and major depressive disorder), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to 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, Paragraph 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 5 October 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 September 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant wrongfully used marijuana (between 10 March 2012 and 10 April 2012). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 6 September 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 September 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 March 2009 / 2 years, 18 weeks / (Note: The applicant's ERB reflects an ETS of 15 November 2013; however, contract or extension NIF) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 104 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13F10, Fire Support Specialist / 3 years, 6 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (13 February 2010 to 17 February 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, CAB / (Note: Counsel states the applicant was awarded a Purple Heart following his combat injury sustained in August 2010; however, the applicant's record does not support this claim). g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Article 15, dated 5 March 2012, for dereliction of duty (1 January 2012). The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 7 days. Field Grade Article, dated 21 June 2012, for wrongfully using marijuana (10 April 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $745 for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. A positive urinalysis coded IR (Inspection Random), dated 10 April 2012, for marijuana. Five negative counseling statements for being intoxicated, AWOL, wrongfully using an illegal drug, positive urinalysis, leaving his room unsecure, and failure to report on time; also an initial, a monthly, ASAP counseling and a change of leadership. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 6 days (AWOL, 19 September 2012 to 24 September 2012) / mode of return is unknown. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 July 2012, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) alcohol dependence and cannabis abuse. He was evaluated by mTBI clinic and treated for concussion. Post-concussion symptoms are not present. Primary substance abuse disorders. He did not meet criteria for other Axis disorders, no psychosis, no affective disorders, and no PTSD. He could participate in administrative proceedings for separation. Report of Medical Evaluation, dated 16 August 2012, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with mTBI, alcohol dependence, and substance abuse. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Title 10-Armed Forces, pages 769-770 and 928-929; Attorney's brief; self-authored statement; Developmental Counseling Form, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center medical documents; Report of Mental status Evaluation; FG Article 15; memorandum, matters concerning administrative separation; background check; chapter 14 discharge documents; Report of medical Examination; discharge orders 242-0017; AR 27-10 pages 3-4; and an administrative separation information paper; attorney's cover letter; VA documentation; request for PTSD documents; and VA 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 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." 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. 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, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. Counsel also contends that the Army failed to support the applicant's rehabilitative efforts and treat his medical and emotional issues. Counsel submitted medical documents from the Landstuhl Medical Center which indicates the applicant, while on Active Duty, was diagnosed with (Axis I) adjustment disorder with depressed mood and alcohol dependence and provided treatment for these conditions. Counsel further contends that procedural errors existed associated with and preceding the discharge, and the rights of the applicant were prejudiced. 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. Furthermore, 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 his discharge was improper or inequitable. Counsel states that the applicant's use of marijuana was an isolated incident. 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 of service. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. Counsel contends that the applicant's family and personal problems should be considered as extenuating and mitigating to the reason for the discharge. 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 his family and personal problems were not considered as extenuating and mitigating to the reason for the discharge. Lastly, counsel contends the recommendation by the unit commander was capricious and constituted an abuse of discretion by a commanding officer, because he did not take into account of the applicant's capability to serve with rehabilitation. The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what he believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. Counsel has expressed the applicant's desire to have better job opportunities and the benefits of the GI Bill. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, 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 3 March 2017, 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 service, to include his combat service, and circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. severe family matters, in-service diagnosis of TBI, and post service diagnosis of service-connected PTSD and major depressive disorder), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to 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: 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 AR20150019299 1