1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 January 2017 b. Date Received: 30 January 2017 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, irrelevant documents were added to his case for prejudicial reasons. His company commander did not follow standard policy in his case. The decision to separate him was not made by his acting commander, but by another commander. He was unjustly separated with only one month of service remaining on his contract. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time to include the military electronic medical record, the applicant did not have a medical or behavioral health condition that was mitigating for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. A review of electronic military medical records found that SM did have a diagnosis of Anxiety, Depression, Insomnia, mild cannabis and moderate alcohol misuse disorder; however, these are not considered mitigating factors for substance use on several occasions. He was first seen by behavioral health on 22 April 2012 for sleep problems and reported use of sleep medications (Ambien and Seroquel) in the past (reason was not given). Medical note dated 8 July 2013 indicated SM reported a previous mental health history to include diagnoses of mild Aspergers and ADHD and involvement in therapy since the age of 5. He reported having anxiety his whole life with an increase in symptoms since being at his first duty station. Mental Status Eval dated 5 November 2015 indicated SM was psychiatrically cleared and met medical retention standards. SM has a 40% service connected rating from the VA for Anxiety. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 18 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: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200, Paragraph 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 12 February 2016 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 January 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; wrongful use of marijuana x2 between (15 September 2015 and 14 October 2015) and (24 August 2015 and 22 September 2015); and wrongful use of hydrocodone between (20 September and 22 September 2015). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 1 February 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 February 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 March 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 years / GED Certificate / 133 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 3 years, 10 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 5 January 2016, for wrongful use of marijuana x2 between (15 September 2015 and 14 October 2015) and (24 August 2015 and 22 September 2015); and wrongful use of hydrocodone between (20 September and 22 September 2015); reduction to PFC / E-3 and extra duty for 45 days. Positive urinalysis test coded IR (Inspection Random), dated 22 September 2015, for HYCOD, MYMOR, OXCOD, OXMOR and THC. Positive urinalysis test coded IU (Inspection Unit), dated 22 September 2015, for THC. The applicant received two negative counseling statements regarding FLAG action and a pending CID investigation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 November 2015, reflects that Axis I, II and III diagnoses are documented in AHLTA in accordance with AR 40-66. The applicant met the retention standards prescribed in Chapter 3, AR 40-501, and there was no psychiatric disease or defect that warrants disposition through medical channels at that time. He was mentally responsible and has the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative proceedings. He was screened for PTSD and mTBI, neither was evident. He was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by Command. Report of Medical Examination, dated 12 November 2015, revealed that the applicant was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and insomnia. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); DD Form 214; and VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim. 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. 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. 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 seeks relief contending, irrelevant documents were added to his case for prejudicial reasons. Although the applicant alleges that there was some prejudice toward him during his military service, there is no evidence in his military records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence supporting this contention. Therefore, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant further contends, the decision to separate him was not made by his acting commander, but by another commander; and he was unjustly separated with only one month of service remaining on his contract. 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, his company commander did not follow standard policy in his case. 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 contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. 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 18 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 AR20170001488 4