1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 April 2016 b. Date Received: 28 April 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, when he incurred a lower back injury in early 2011, he was restricted to light duty. Updated temporary physical profiles showed the changes in his functional limitations and capabilities. At the time of his discharge, he was in the process of being medically boarded. He resorted to smoking marijuana because he was under a lot of stress due to his normal duties and also for personal reasons. He did not want to become addicted to the pain medication prescribed for his back injury. His discharge was based on one incident in his 33 months of service with no other violations. He was on "fast track" with his career until he received a gunshot wound. An upgrade would provide him VA health care. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time to include the military electronic medical record, the applicant's case files, AHLTA, and JLV. The applicant reports in his application that he smoked marijuana because of stress and because he did not want to become addicted to pain medications for his back. Review of AHLTA indicates he was not prescribed any opioid pain medications until after he had positive urine drug screen for marijuana (positive UDS was in August 2011, and was not prescribed Percocet for his back pain until 16 September 2011). He saw Behavioral Health several times for stress related issues. He was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood. He was seen by Orthopedics in August 2011 for gunshot wound to his leg. First reported, it was accidentally self-inflicted but later changed his statement and identified person who shot him. In April 2012, he was seen by Psychology. It was reported he was charged with making a false written statement by Watertown Police. He screened positive on PTSD 4Q screen, reporting that person who shot him, was in prison making threats against his life and he was scared. JLV review reveals only AHLTA content. Based on the information available at this time, the applicant does not have a mitigating behavioral health condition for the offenses leading to his discharge from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 June 2017, 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 26 June 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 May 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant tested positive for marijuana, a controlled substance, on 24 August 2011, and during the urinalysis, he tampered with his urine sample. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 27 May 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived, 27 May 2012, pursuant to an accepted "Offer to Plead Guilty," dated 3 and 28 February 2012, in a summary court-martial proceedings, respectively. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 June 2012 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 September 2009 / 4 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 105 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92G10, Food Service Operation Specialist / 2 years, 9 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM; NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 8 September 2011, shows the applicant tested positive for marijuana during a Probable Cause (PO) urinalysis testing conducted on 24 August 2011. CID Report, dated 20 October 2011, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for failing to obey an order and wrongfully using marijuana. Laboratory Documentation Packet, dated 3 February 2012, contains documents pertaining to the urinalysis testing conducted on 24 August 2011. Report of Result of Trial and its associated document show the applicant was found guilty of the following charges by a summary court-martial on 22 March 2012: Charge I: Violation of Article 112a, UCMJ, for wrongfully using marijuana between 25 July 2011 and 24 August 2011. Charge II: Violation of Article 134, UCMJ, for tampering with his urine sample on 24 August 2011. The sentence consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $835, and 30 days of confinement. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Reports of Medical Examination and Medical History with medical record, dated 4 April 2012, show the applicant and examiner noted behavioral health issues. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 April 2012, shows the applicant's diagnoses as "AXIS I: Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood," and the applicant was cleared for administrative separation. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 25 April 2016; Medical Prescreen of Medical History Report, dated 28 April 2009; Report of Medical Examination, dated 7 May 2009; Report of Medical History, dated 7 May 2009; Percocet prescription sheet; Gabapentin prescription sheet; Permanent Physical Profile (4 copies), dated 12 April 2011; medical records, dated 21 and 22 April 2011; Physician letter, dated 21 April 2011 and 20 July 2011; Discharge Summary, dated 19 August 2011; Physical Profiles, dated 28 November 2011, 30 January 2012; Discharge Summary, dated 7 September 2011; Emergency Room Consultation Report, dated 22 August 2011; medical record, dated 5 December 2011; Health Records, dated 6, 15, and 17 February 2012; Report of Medical Examination, dated 4 April 2012; Report of Medical History, dated 4 April 2012; two doctor's written prescription for 24-hour quarters, dated 17 April and 1 May 2012; two Pre/Post Procedure Instructions, dated 17 April and 1 May 2012; Outpatient Medication List; one-day convalescent leave, dated 18 April 2012; Patient Appointment List, dated 17 May 2012; Outpatient Medication List; and Discharge and Pre/Post Procedure Instructions, dated 18 May 2012. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. 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. 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. 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record further confirms that 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, 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 marred the quality of his service. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence that the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends that at the time of his discharge, he was in the process of being medically boarded. However, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant contends the incident that caused his discharge was the only one in his 33 months of service. 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. 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. The applicant's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues, which involved being under a lot of stress, were carefully considered. A careful review of the record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. The applicant contends an upgrade would provide him VA health care. However, eligibility for veterans' benefits to include health care and 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. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that his complete period of service was or was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. 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 16 June 2017, 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 a 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 / RE Code to: No Change f. 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 AR20160008987 1