1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 May 2016 b. Date Received: 16 May 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant seeking relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, her discharge was a hard lesson to learn from. She has grown so much. She is a mother, bought her own home without any help, and retained an employment with a company that serves the military. She desires to become a police officer. Since the incident that led to her discharge, she no longer experiments with drugs. She wishes she could take back the night of September 2008. She had so many plans with a military career and one second of weakness changed it. The incident does not define her character or make her a bad person. She was just young, dumb, and easily influenced. She learned to choose her friends more wisely and is careful with whom she trusts. Being a role model for her daughter is most important in her life. An upgrade would allow her to become a police officer and serve her community in a positive way. She would like to change the narrative reason for her separation to something the Board feels fitting, but not drug abuse. Many of her leaders attested that she was never a bad person although she made a mistake. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant's misconduct is mitigated based on the ground of trauma and the harshness of the Command's response to the applicant. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 14 July 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, the circumstances surrounding her discharge, and her post service accomplishments as annotated in the case report and directive 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 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to 1. (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: 23 January 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 November 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant tested positive for Cocaine on 19 September 2008. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 November 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 December 2009 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 June 2006 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A1P, Automated Logistical Specialist / 2 years, 7 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (4 June 2007 to 15 July 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; NDSM; ICM-CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR; CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 26 September 2008, shows the applicant tested positive for Cocaine during a urinalysis testing conducted on 18 September 2008, for Probable Cause (PO). Negative counseling statement for being suspected of drug use. FG Article 15, dated 8 October 2008, for wrongfully using cocaine between 14 September 2008 and 18 September 2008. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $673 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 20 October 2008, cleared the applicant from a mental health point of view of any administrative action deemed appropriate by her command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 29 October 2008, indicates the applicant noted behavioral health issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 10 May 2016; father's statement, dated 10 November 2008; separation file; discharge orders; pre-separation counseling checklist; Record of Emergency Date; and Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Election and Certificate. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, that she has become a mother, bought her own home without any help, and retained an employment with a company that serves the military. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): 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. 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 "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), misconduct (drug abuse). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKK" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. 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 her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant's record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. After carefully reviewing the application, the service record reflects that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, separation authority as AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2), block 26 separation code as "JKK," block 27 reentry code as "4," and block 28, narrative reason for separation as "Misconduct." Therefore and as approved by the separation authority, the following administrative corrections are recommended: a. block 25, separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c; b. block 26, separation code to JKQ; c. block 27, reentry code to 3; and d. block 28, reason for separation to Misconduct (Serious Offense). Regarding her request to change the reason for her separation, the narrative reason for her separation is governed by specific directives and as approved by the separation authority. The narrative reason specified by AR 635-5-1 for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is JKQ. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 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 her 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. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of her service prior to the incident of misconduct, and her post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that her complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of her characterization of service. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re- characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The applicant contends an upgrade and a change to her current discharge would allow her to become a police officer. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Although the applicant did not raise any behavioral health issues, a careful review of the available record indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to her misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. 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 her 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 14 July 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, the circumstances surrounding her discharge, and her post service accomplishments as annotated in the case report and directive 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 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to 1. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 5-3 e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JFF / Change to RE code to 1 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 AR20160009334 1