1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 August 2016 b. Date Received: 15 September 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge should be changed due to the allegations of possessing and using an illegal substance were proven to be inaccurate and unsubstantiated. He did not use an illegal substance or know of it being there until CID found it. His punishment by leadership was very harsh and did not fit the situation considering the facts and evidence; he had a clean record and there was no evidence to support the claims that were made against him. He sincerely apologize for this situation coming to light and any distorted picture it paints of him. It does not reflect his true character and work ethic. He was born to be a Soldier and serve his country. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 29 November 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 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 9 August 2016 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 March 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; wrongful use of marijuana between (1 December 2014 and 31 December 2014). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 6 June 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon his receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 July 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 May 2015 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 29 years / 3 years of college / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 19D2P, Cavalry Scout / 11 years, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USN, 6 January 2004 to 21 June 2005 / GD Break In Service ARNG, 17 January 2007 to 16 April 2007 / HD RA, 17 November 2008 to 18 May 2015 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Japan (prior service) / SWA / Iraq x2, 24 October 2007 to 6 December 2008 and 6 July 2010 to 15 June 2011 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-5, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-3CS, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NOPDR-2, ASR, OSR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 12 August 2014 to 11 August 2015 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Law Enforcement Report, dated 17 August 2015, revealed the applicant was under investigation for wrongful possession of a controlled substance (marijuana), wrongful use of a controlled substance (marijuana), making a false statement and failure to obey a General Order. FG Article 15, dated 9 December 2015, for wrongful use of marijuana between (1 December 2014 and 31 December 2014); and wrongful possession of .075 grams of marijuana (29 May 2015); reduction to SGT / E-5, forfeiture of $1,475 pay (suspended) and extra duty for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 28 January 2016, relates he was diagnosed with depression and prescribed Zoloft for treatment. Report of Mental Status, dated 7 July 2016, shows that the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of problems related to employment; and an Axis III diagnosis of chronic Post Traumatic Headache. He was screened for PTSD and mTBI, both screens were negative. Based on clinical interview and review of the electronic medical records, although the applicant may be suffering from a mental disease or defect, it was not of sufficient severity to impact his ability to distinguish right from wrong or participate in administrative proceedings. He was cleared form a behavioral health perspective to participate in any administrate process as deemed appropriate by Command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application (seven pages); DA photo; support statement; four character statements; background check (two pages); and a DD Form 214 (two pages). 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. 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 14-12c(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. 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 requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and a change to the 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 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 applicant requests a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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, misconduct (drug abuse). The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized The applicant seeks relief contending, his discharge should be changed due to the allegations of possessing and using an illegal substance were proven to be inaccurate and unsubstantiated; and he did not use an illegal substance or know of it being there until CID found it. The evidence of record shows that a CID Agent's Investigation report ROI number 00577-15- CID023-065817, revealed that probable cause existed to believe that the applicant committed the offense of wrongful use and possession of a controlled substance. The applicant further contends, his punishment by leadership was very harsh and did not fit the situation considering the facts and evidence; he had a clean record and there was no evidence to support the claims that were made against him. 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 contentions. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. 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 applicant also contends, he sincerely apologize for this situation coming to light and any distorted picture it paints of him; his misconduct does not reflect his true character and work ethic. However, these contentions are not matters upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. The applicant additionally contends, he was born to be a Soldier and serve his country. Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 4. An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. 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. 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 29 November 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 AR20160015217 4