1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 December 2015 b. Date Received: 21 December 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 and a change to narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his command and medical staff refused him treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) until after he had a positive urinalysis test. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had a mitigating behavioral health condition for the some (but not the majority) of the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. The electronic medical records (AHLTA) were reviewed with clinical encounters from April thru December 2005 (note: implementation began in 2003). Clinical notes reviewed from August 2004 thru September 2005. Radiology reports reviewed from 15 February 2005 (lumbar spine x-ray series with mild dextroscoliosis, mild early degenerative disc disease at L5-S1 evidenced by early joint space loss, spina bifida occulta at S1 as normal variant). Laboratory results reviewed from April 2004 thru October 2005. Theater behavioral health (BH) visits on 26, 30 April, 4, 7 and 9 May 2005 with history of visit at VA and at Fort Carson for BH. Multiple BH visits after early return from deployment on 14 and 28 June. Physical examination for MEB due to PTSD on 13 July and 1 August 2005. A limited review through the JLV (Joint Legacy Viewer) of the applicant's Veterans Affairs records notes 47 problems (42 VA entered) including PTSD, paranoid schizophrenia, mood disorder, major depression, panic disorder, anxiety, polysubstance abuse (alcohol and nicotine dependence), insomnia, low back pain, migraine, acne, and others. The Veterans Affairs has service-connected the applicant at 70 percent overall. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 March 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25, 26, 27, and 28 contain erroneous entries. The Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 25, separation authority changed to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c b. block 26, separation code changed to JKQ c. block 27, reentry eligibility code changed to 3 d. block 28, narrative reason for separation changed to Misconduct (Serious Offense) (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: 3 February 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 December 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: possession of marijuana (2 October 2005); positive urinalysis test for marijuana on diverse occasions (9 February, 5 October, and 16 November 2005); communicated a threat (26 April 2005); failed to attend a Command Directed Urinalysis (28 August 2005); and failed to obey a lawful order by not signing in at the CQ desk (16 November 2005) at 1800 hours. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 16 December 2005 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 January 2006, the separation authority reviewed the chapter action. He directed that the applicant be processed under administrative separation provisions, Chapter 14-12c, commission of a serious offense, in accordance with AR 635-200, paragraph 1-33. Although the Medical Evaluation Board findings indicated that the applicant's case should be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board, he found that the applicant's medical condition was not a direct or substantial contributing cause of his misconduct and that administrative separation under Chapter 14-12c, commission of a serious offense, was appropriate in this case. The separation authority did not specify a characterization of service in his separation memorandum. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 November 2003 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 63M10, Bradley Fighting Vehicle System Maintainer / 4 years, 8 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 31 May 2001 to 3 November 2003 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait (30 April 2002 to 31 October 2002), Kuwait/Iraq (5 March 2003 to 3 June 2003 and 21 March 2005 to 24 May 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AGCM, NDSM, AFEM, ICM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article, dated 14 May 2005, for wrongful use of marijuana (between 1 February 2005 and 9 February 2005); for being disrespectful in deportment toward SGT O. by rolling over and ignoring him when told to get up and get dressed (25 April 2005); and for being disrespectful in language toward SGT O., by saying to him, "no f that, I'm going to take a shower" or words to that effect. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $500 pay for two months, and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Military Police Report, dated 3 October 2005, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for possession of drug paraphernalia, on post. A positive urinalysis test coded IU (Inspection Unit), dated 4 October 2005, for THC. Three positive urinalysis tests coded PO (Probable Cause), dated 9 February 2005, 5 October 2005 and 16 November 2005, all for THC. Military Police Report, dated 13 October 2005, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for possession of marijuana, on post. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for positive urinalysis tests, communicating a threat, prohibiting carrying a weapon, prohibiting unescorted travel on FOB Striker, failing to report, disobeying a superior commissioned officer, disobeying a senior noncommissioned officer, violation of pass revocation, absent without leave, assaulting of willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, disobeying a non-commissioned officer, failure to obey order or regulation, failure to attend command directed urinalysis and pending UCMJ action. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 22 September 2005, shows that the applicant was diagnosed with chronic PTSD and referred to a Physical Evaluation Board. Physical Profile (permanent), dated 23 September 2005, reflects the applicant's medical condition for his profile was chronic PTSD. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated December 2005, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) PTSD. The back page is not in the file. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; commander's performance statement memorandum; Evans Army Community Hospital medical documents; prescription for PTSD; permanent profile for PTSD; support statement; and the applicant spouse's statement. 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 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. 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. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and a change to narrative reason for separation. 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. The Transition Center (TC) inappropriately selected the SPD code, reentry code, and reason for the discharge to execute the commander's intent which in this case was to discharge the applicant for commission of a serious offense. Army Regulation 635-5-1 provides the authority for Transition Centers (TC) throughout the Army to execute the commanders' intent and in this case the TC selected the inappropriate reentry code, the SPD Code that identified the type of separation and the incorrect paragraph from AR 635-200 that corresponded with the reason for the applicant's separation as described in the discharge packet. The applicant seeks relief contending, his command and medical staff refused him treatment for PTSD and TBI until after he had a positive urinalysis test. The applicant bears the burden of presenting 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 command and medical staff refused him treatment for PTSD and TBI. If the applicant was experiencing mental health issues, he could have self-referred to the community behavioral health center for assistance with his mental health problems. 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 March 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25, 26, 27, and 28 contain erroneous entries. The Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 25, separation authority changed to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c b. block 26, separation code changed to JKQ c. block 27, reentry eligibility code changed to 3 d. block 28, narrative reason for separation changed to Misconduct (Serious Offense) 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Serious Offense) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JKQ / Change to RE code to 3 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 AR20160000679 1