1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 December 2016 b. Date Received: 19 January 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, his command did not give him a second chance after his first offense or given him the opportunity to rehabilitate as he was young and very curious at the time. (Note that the applicant cited paragraphs 14-12c and 14-12c(2) of AR 635-200) He asserts that he did not commit any serious crime. He was treated unfairly because he lacked information. He feels he could have done something to save his military career. It is too painful for him to remember what he experienced in Afghanistan. For two months he slept only three hours a day causing him to almost lose his mind. His family is the only reason he kept strong. He was also made to perform hard work but not his actual work. Since his discharge, he has been a law abiding citizen, a responsible father of two children, and a loving husband. He respects and follows the laws and pay taxes. Because he never had a criminal offense, he deserves an honorable discharge. 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 applicant was diagnosed with Cocaine Abuse. Chapter 14-12 mental status evaluation indicates his mental status exam was normal. VA contains no data on applicant. Based on available information, applicant does not have a mitigating Behavioral Health disorder. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 April 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25, 26, 27, and 28, contain erroneous entries. In view of the erroneous entries, the Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 25, separation authority changed to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, b. block 26, separation code changed to JKQ, c. block 27, reentry code changed to 3, and d. block 28, narrative reason for separation changed to Misconduct (Serious Offense). (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: 18 August 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 July 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant wrongfully used a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine, between 27 January 2006 and 27 February 2006. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 25 July 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 July 2006 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 September 2004 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / 13 years / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 1 year, 11 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (3 March 2006 to 25 June 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; ACM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 7 March 2006, shows the applicant tested positive for Cocaine during an Inspection, Unit (IU) urinalysis testing conducted on 27 February 2006. Negative counseling statement for testing positive for cocaine. FG Article 15, dated 22 April 2006, for wrongfully using cocaine between 17 January 2006, and 27 February 2006. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $318 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, undated, reflects that the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 5 July 2006, indicates the applicant and the examiner noted behavioral health issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; DD Form 214; and separation file. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The application states, in effect, since his discharge, he has been a law abiding citizen, a responsible father of two children, and a loving husband. 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. Paragraph 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that 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, 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 that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. The service record further 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). 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 the discharge was unjust because he was treated unfairly as he was young and lacked information, and his command did not give him a second chance, nor provided him the opportunity to rehabilitate, and he never committed any serious crime. 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 his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discharged. 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. AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. Further, AR 600-85, paragraph 3-8 entitled self-referrals, states the applicant could have self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance. The applicant contends that he was young and lacked information at the time of the discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The applicant contends that since leaving the Army he has been a law-abiding citizen, a responsible father, and a loving husband. The applicant's post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application. However, in review of the applicant's entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. 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. Although the applicant did not directly raised 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 his 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 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 13 April 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25, 26, 27, and 28, contain erroneous entries. In view of the erroneous entries, the Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 25, separation authority changed to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, b. block 26, separation code changed to JKQ, c. block 27, reentry code changed to 3, and d. block 28, narrative reason for separation changed to Misconduct (Serious Offense). 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Serious Offense) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKQ/RE-3 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 AR20170000699 5