1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 August 2016 b. Date Received: 6 October 2016 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant through legal counsel requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change of his narrative reason for separation to an appropriate, less derogatory narrative, such as secretarial authority. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was improper and inequitable and that he was a victim of multiple issues of injustice. The applicant states that his Administrative Separation Board comprised of an all Caucasian board panel, despite his minority status. The applicant contends that as an African American male, who suffered from PTSD at the time of his discharge, he should have had a minority board member. Further contending that in addition to being represented by a female TDS attorney, the Board retained a less qualified, less decorated Caucasian Soldier for the same offense, on the same day. As an exceptional Soldier every effort should have been made to retain him. He has an exemplary military background and served nearly eight honorable years in the military before being separated. Aside from racial discrimination, there does not appear to be any rational explanation for this inconsistent outcome. The applicant's punishment was excessive and unnecessary. The applicant was suffering from PTSD as a result of multiple combat tours and made the mistake of turning to a one-time self-medication, as opposed to seeking professional help. It was both an error and injustice for the US Army to proceed straight to separating him after one isolated mistake, instead of using progressive disciplinary measures. He should not have to live with the stigma of a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, especially after selflessly serving his country as an exceptional and honorable combat veteran and Soldier for nearly eight years. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no mitigating behavioral health condition or for his cannabis use that led to his positive UA; however, the applicant's case is remarkable in that neither the Cannabis Abuse Diagnosis on 16 March, nor the Alcohol Abuse Diagnosis on 14 January 2010 resulted in the applicant receiving ASAP treatment. In that light, his treatment seems to have been harsh and unhelpful. The note did show he was to have received treatment in one week, but AHLTA showed no further encounters. Finally, even when cleared for administrative discharge, the psychiatrist wrote the applicant's "prognosis is good at this time." In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 May 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 his combat service, the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. severe life stressors), and post-service accomplishments as annotated in the case report and directive mitigated the discrediting entry in his 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 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry eligibility (RE) code to 3. (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: 2 September 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 April 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant wrongfully used marijuana (between 15 November 2009 and 15 December 2009). (3) Recommended Characterization: Retain on Active Duty. If the recommendation was disapproved and the applicant was discharged, the commander recommended that the applicant receive a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 May 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 11 June 2010, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights. On 28 June 2010, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant's discharge with characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). On 21 July 2010, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant's discharge with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 July 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 June 2007 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: SSG / 25B20, IT Specialist / 8 years, 2 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 27 June 2002 to 11 June 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Qatar deployments dates were not found in the record) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ICM-2CS, ARCOM-4, AAM-3, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR / (Note: DD Form 214 does not reflect the applicant's additional three ARCOMs, AGCM, and two AAMs found in his record.) g. Performance Ratings: 1 February 2007 to 30 June 2009 (three reports), Among The Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 21 December 2009, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 31 (marijuana) during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 15 December 2009. CID Report, dated 8 January 2010, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongful use of marijuana. FG Article 15, dated 13 January 2010, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 15 November and 15 December 2009). The punishment consisted of reduction to E-5. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 14 April 2010, reflects the applicant had problems with adjustment disorder with depressed mood and alcohol abuse. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and legal brief, with enclosures listed on page 2 of brief. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has earned three professional level certifications and is now a certified CompTIA Net+, Cisco Certified Network Associate Routing and Switching, and Cisco Certified Network Associate-Security professional. 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. 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 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." 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant through legal counsel requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change of his narrative reason for discharge to an appropriate, less derogatory narrative, such as secretarial authority. 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. Furthermore, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, the applicant 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. 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 contends that given he was of African American descent, that his Administrative Separation Board should have comprised of at least one minority board member. The applicant's contention was noted; however, as noted in AR 635-200, section 2-7, the board would upon written request of the respondent (applicant) include as a voting member a member who is also a minority group member, if reasonably available. The available record is void of any documents indicating the applicant made this request. The applicant contends, absent race and gender discrimination, the administrative separation board had no valid reason to recommended separation for the applicant's retention for his white, less-experienced counterpart facing the same charges and circumstances. However, the method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. The applicant contends that his exceptional record and performance as evidenced in his evaluation reports, shows that every effort should have been made to retain him. Also the act of proceeding straight to separation for such a valuable and highly qualified Soldier was excessive and unnecessary given the particulars in his case. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended on his in-service accomplishment. However, the applicant as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. 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. It should be noted by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct (drug abuse). It appears the applicant's generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. The applicant also contends as a result of multiple combat tours, he continues to suffer from PTSD. Also, during the period in which he used a controlled substance, he was dealing with a multitude of things that further impacted his mental state, including his younger brother being diagnosed with a mental illness and his mother battling cancer. However, 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 issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his substance abuse was directly related to PTSD. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. 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 his 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted no additional documents. b. The applicant presented no additional contentions. c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 May 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 his combat service, the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. severe life stressors), and post-service accomplishments as annotated in the case report and directive mitigated the discrediting entry in his 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 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry eligibility (RE) code to 3. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JKN / Change to RE code to 3 f. Restore Grade to: No Change 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 AR20160018634 4