1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 31 May 2016 b. Date Received: 14 June 2016 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant's chain of command made a material error of discretion when essential mitigating information from military law enforcement was completely disregarded. Further, the facts that led to her positive urinalysis were omitted and thereby portrayed the applicant in an improper light. Additionally, her post- service accomplishments warrant an upgrade when viewed in conjunction with the character references from her former commanding officer, first sergeant, and squad leader. The evidence of record reflects the applicant had a prior records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 4 February 2015. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, case files, AHLTA and JLV were reviewed. AHLTA indicates diagnosis of Adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood, Depressive Disorder NOS, ADHD and Alcohol Dependence. Applicant has history of ADHD from childhood. Was placed on stimulants while in army. She has a positive family history of alcohol dependence and substance abuse. While on active duty, she attended BH and ASAP appointments. Was admitted to 28 day inpatient rehab program from which she successfully graduated. Diagnosed with Depressive Disorder NOS while in hospital. Placed on multiple medications. JLV contains no content on applicant. Based on review of the available information, there are no mitigating BH conditions. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 May 2018, 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: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure / AR 635-200 / Chapter 9 / JPD / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 13 June 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 May 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: She was enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) on 18 June 2012 and she was diagnosed with alcohol dependence; On 4 January 2012, she tested positive for MDMA; Involved in an incident in which it was reported that her breath smelled like alcohol; and, The commander determined, after careful consideration with her rehabilitation team, that further attempts were not practical, therefore on 20 February 2013, he declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 14 May 2013, the applicant waived her rights to consult with A JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 May 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 August 2010 / 3 years, 25 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 14S10, Avenger Crewmember / 2 years, 9 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 8 March 2012, for failing to obey a lawful order by possessing alcohol in her barracks room (18 January 2012); and, for wrongfully use 3, 4-Methylenedioxymeth- amphetamine (between 30 December 2011 and 4 January 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $745 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty for 45 days (suspended); restriction for 45 days; and, an oral reprimand. Commander's Inquiry Findings, dated 18 February 2013, reflects the preponderance of the evidence showed that the applicant did consume alcohol on the night of 9 February 2013 through the early morning hours of 10 February 2013. Summary of Army Substance Abuse Program Rehabilitation Failure (memo), dated 20 February 2013, reflects the ASAP Clinical Director, recommended to the applicant's commander that she be declared a rehabilitation failure and determined the applicant had not made satisfactory progress toward achieving the criteria for successful rehabilitation as outlined in AR 600-85, para 3-2 and 3-3. Further rehabilitation efforts in a military environment were not justified in light of the applicant's lack of progress. Discharge from military service should be effected. The Clinical Director noted: "Pre-treatment findings for [the applicant] indicate she was a self-referral to ASAP on June 18, 2012, due to two alcohol related incidents: One incident dated December 31, 2011 of drinking in San Francisco and [the] other on January 15, 2012 for dinking in the barracks, both which resulted in Article 15 according to intake records..." Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 April 2013, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. Memorandum for Record, dated 13 May 2013, reflects the applicant's commander determined that applicant was a rehabilitative failure for alcohol usage. The applicant had been command referred to ASAP in August 2012. In January 2013, the applicant was found with the preponderance of evidence in Commander's Inquiry to have consumed alcohol. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Alcohol dependency as diagnosed by the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Clinical Director (memo), dated 20 February 2013. Report of Medical History, dated 11 March 2013, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section that the applicant had been diagnosed with Anxiety and depression. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with allied legal brief. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has obtained employment and earned several certifications. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. Army policy states that an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge is authorized depending on the applicant's overall record of service. However, an honorable discharge is required if limited use information is used in the discharge process. 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 "JPD" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service 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 a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment 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 characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors 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. Caution shall be exercised 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, through counsel, requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record indicates that on 18 February 2013, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. The applicant did not have the potential for continued military service because her long term need for residential treatment would be served through the Veteran's Health Care services. The applicant contends command made a material error of discretion when essential mitigating information from military law enforcement was completely disregarded. Further, the facts that led to her positive urinalysis were omitted and thereby portrayed the applicant in an improper light. The applicant provides a letter from her company commander indicating that she was not punished under the UCMJ for drug use in June 2012, because it was determined that her drink was tampered with. However, 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. Further, the evidence of the record reflects she was punished for drug use in March 2012 based on her use of a MDMA in January 2012. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "alcohol / drug rehabilitation failure," and the separation code is "JPD." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize her good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 May 2018, 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 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 AR20160011366 4