1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 October 2016 b. Date Received: 12 December 2016 c. Power of Attorney: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. He reenlisted after serving in Iraq and did not realize the impact the enemy action had on him nor TBI for IED rollovers and loss of friends. The applicant reenlisted after returning from Iraq and asked to be transferred to Fort Huachuca. Shortly after arriving, the applicant began having nightmares, was having difficulty sleeping and unexplained back pain. The medical (civilians) nor the personnel he reported to at Fort Huachuca had PTSD experience nor had they been in combat. His untreated PTSD and incorrect use of prescribed pain medication for the back pain led to him being reduced in rank and subsequent discharge. It was not until after the applicant was discharged was his PTSD, TBI, and protruding neck disk identified, diagnosed, and treated. The applicant served his country honorably in battle and believes the Army did not stand by him due to misdiagnoses. He contends he was told if he accepted the general (under honorable conditions) discharge versus a court-martial, that after five years he could apply to have his discharge upgraded to an honorable. The applicant's general (under honorable conditions) discharge, along with the separation code and narrative reason, has seriously impacted his ability to find employment. The applicant states that he is continually punished when the VA finding states that he was suffering from PTSD, TBI, and back pain at the time of his discharge. Since his discharge, the applicant has been treated by the VA for his stated medical conditions, in addition to a neck spinal disc surgery that corrected a protruding disc injury he incurred during an IED rollover in Iraq. Army contract medical personnel ignored his back complaints and just prescribed pain medications and sent him back to duty. Unfortunately, they were addictive and after discharge the VA has helped his to overcome the addiction. Since the submission of the applicant's request for an upgrade, the Army Review Boards Agency has been notified that the applicant is now deceased. The applicant's father has requested that the agency continue to process his son's application to upgrade his discharge. Therefore, from hereon in, the applicant will be referred to as "the former service member." Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time to include the military electronic medical record, the former service member had mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. Because Depression can be associated with use of alcohol and substances for self-medication, impaired judgment, and impulsivity, there is a nexus between this applicant's misconduct and his behavioral health symptoms. Review of the military electronic medical records indicated behavioral health treatment starting August 2008, to include behavioral health counseling and medication management. He was treated primarily for depression, an adjustment disorder, alcohol abuse, opioid dependence, and back pain. The former service member reported difficulty coping with grief and reported a history of several suicide attempts to include overdosing prior to enlisting in the Army, holding a gun to his head while deployed, and attempting to overdose by means of sleeping pills post-deployment. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 April 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of a partial upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. (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 March 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 February 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: wrongfully used heroin on divers occasions; committed larceny; assaulted his wife; and, broke restriction. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 February 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 February 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 January 2009 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 3 years, 2 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 10 January 2007 to 20 January 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (dates NIF) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 23 July 2009, for stealing a pair of Armani Exchange sunglasses and a bottle of Burberry Brit cologne, of a value of about $107.40, the property of the Army Air Force Exchange Services. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $699 pay per month for two months, and extra duty for 20 days. Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 17 September 2009, reflects the applicant's results were blackened out, which leaves one to assume that the result was positive, during a Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing conducted on 8 September 2009. Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 18 September 2009, reflects the applicant's results were blackened out, which leaves one to assume that the result was positive, during a Command Directed (CO) urinalysis testing conducted on 3 September 2009. Two Memorandums, dated 6 October 2009, authored by Medical Review Officer (MRO), Subject: Biochemical Positive, reflect the former service member was evaluated at the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) by the MRO as positive for Morphine (MOR) and Codeine (COD), urine sample collected on 3 September 2009. There was no legal use of MOR and COD determined at medical evaluation. Memorandum, dated 6 October 2009, authored by Medical Review Officer (MRO), Subject: Biochemical Positive, reflects the former service member was evaluated at the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) by the MRO as positive for Morphine (MOR), urine sample collected on 8 September 2009. There was no legal use of MOR determined at medical evaluation. CID Report, dated 19 October 2009, reflects the former service member was the subject of investigation for wrongful use of opiates. Chronological Record of Medical Care documents, dated 2 November 2009, reflect the former service member had problems with opioid dependence, depression, lower back pain, combined drug and alcohol abuse, episodic mood disorders, alcohol abuse, and adjustment disorder. FG Article 15, dated 23 December 2009, for having been restricted to the limits of the company area, dining and medical facility, place of worship, place of duty, commissary, and the gym, by a person authorized to do so, broke restriction (19 October 2009), and on divers occasions (between 27 August 2009 and 7 September 2009) wrongfully used heroin. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $500 pay per month for two months (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 45 days, and oral reprimand. The applicant's service record contains a DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document for Drug Testing) that shows the urinalysis test was coded CO which indicates "Competence for Duty/Command Direct/Fitness for duty." The Limited Use Policy applies to this test basis, per AR 600-85. However, the evidence of record contains a counseling statement that reflects the former service member had tested positive for morphine, codeine and 6aceta morphine during the 3 September 2009 and 8 September 2009 Unit Urinalysis Inspections. In view of the aforementioned, it appears the CO code used on the DD Form 2624 was in all likelihood incorrect and should have been coded PO for "Probable Cause" instead of CO for "Competence for Duty." If this was in fact a harmless error, then the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the error on file in this case. The evidence in the record did not create a substantial doubt that the discharge would have been any different if the error had not been made. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 28 October 2009, reflects the former service member was hospitalized on 21 October 2009 for depressed mood and suicidal ideation and discharged from inpatient psychiatric treatment on 28 October 2009. It was noted that he was diagnosed with mood disorder NOS with OCD Traits, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and history of heroin abuse. He was prescribed antidepressant medication and medication to facilitate sleep. A clinical interview indicated he displayed anxious mood, but was mentally and emotionally stable without current signs of danger to self or others or risky behavior. He was returned to his unit with a recommendation for 24-hours quarters to allow him time to re-acclimate to the military environment. Department of Veterans Affairs letter, dated 10 November 2016, signed by the Medical Director, Mental Health & Behavioral Sciences, reflects the former service member had been diagnosed with PTSD (from Iraq war combat), major depressive disorder with a suicidal ideas (and history of suicide attempts), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, opioid use disorder/opioid dependence in sustained remission, traumatic brain injury from two IED explosions and up to five military-vehicle rollovers. It was also noted, he had neck surgery (C2-C5) for cervical radiculopathy and back surgery, both through the Department of Veterans Affairs. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with attachments listed in block 8 of the application; and a copy of the former service member's certificate of death certificate. 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. 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." "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 former service member requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The former service member's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms the former service member'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 former service member compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The former service member, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, the former service member knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge. The appropriated SPD code and narrative reason to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged for Misconduct (Drug Abuse) is "JKK," and the RE code of "3." The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. The former service member provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the former service member's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The former service member's contentions that the Veterans Affairs determined he was suffering from PTSD, TBI, and back pain at the time of discharge was noted. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record reflects that on 28 October 2009, the former service member underwent a mental status evaluation, which indicates he was mentally and emotionally stable without current signs of danger to himself or others or risky behavior. It appears the former service member's chain of command determined that although he was suffering from PTSD and other medical issues, he knew the difference between what was right and wrong. The former service member expressed his desire for an upgrade for the purpose of making it easier for him to obtain employment opportunities as a veteran. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 12 April 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of a partial upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. 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 AR20170000700 1