1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 December 2016 b. Date Received: 22 February 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, she was separated for misconduct which involved drug abuse. The narrative reason of drug abuse automatically sparks bias in terms of employment and education. She states, the fact is that she only used a drug one time. She believes that one lapse in judgment should not affect her forever. The applicant states, she would like to use the GI Bill, which she paid into during her service. She is rehabilitated and desires a second chance. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant is not raising her psychiatric condition as the reason for her use of drugs. Instead, she contends it was an isolated incident, a "lapse in judgment." The records referenced in the CDR suggests more than 1 lapse. She was also judged by command to rehabilitate herself from reliance on "drug abuse and alcohol incident." She did complain at the time that efforts to obtain psychiatric help led to her being treated like a "deceased [sic] animal." Her self-report (04 February 2015) of her health history for her separation medical exam showed she did complain of troubled sleep, depression or worry, and admitted she had sought and was receiving a mental health evaluation. The doctor noted, "The applicant was being treated for these complaints since 2013." Her profile was S3 temporary. Her Separation MSE showed her negative on screens for PTSD and TBI, judged her to meet medical retention requirements, and to be accountable for her acts, even though she was in a MEB for physical reasons. Her AHLTA diagnoses were Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. She obtained diagnoses of Bipolar, Chronic PTSD from the VA in 2016, and has subsequent diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder, Cannabis Abuse, and Major Depressive Disorder. Whatever her subsequent psychiatric history, there is sufficient evidence of psychiatric distress in service, combined with post-service diagnoses, to mitigate her misconduct under the Liberal Consideration policy. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 June 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service, post- service accomplishments, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of PTSD and OBH) and as a result it is inequitable. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. The board found the reentry code 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 / Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 12 January 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 November 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: She tested positive for marijuana during a unit urinalysis test. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 November 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 December 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 February 2012 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 31B10, Military Police / 3 years, 11 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 2 September 2015, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 19 January and 18 February 2015). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $733 pay per month for two months (suspended); extra duty for 45 days; and, an oral reprimand. CG Article 15, dated 4 June 2014, for disobeying a lawful order given by a noncommissioned officer (7 May 2014); for wrongfully communicating a threat to a noncommissioned officer (7 May 2014); and, for being drunk and disorderly (11 October 2013). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended); forfeiture of $400 pay (suspended); and, extra duty for 14 days. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 6 November 2014, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment relating to reduction to E-2 and forfeiture of $400, imposed on 4 June 2014, was vacated because the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty (24 June 2014). CG Article 15, dated 13 January 2015, failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty (24 June and 11 July 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended); forfeiture of $360 pay (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days (suspended). Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 6 May 2015, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 46 (marijuana), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 18 February 2015. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 September 2015, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with a Major Depressive Disorder, in partial remission. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and three character statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: She states she has been rehabilitated. 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. 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 her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. 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 her service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The record confirms that the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of her 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 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 she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends the event that caused her discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge will allow her to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization 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 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 15 June 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service, post-service accomplishments, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of PTSD and OBH) and as a result it is inequitable. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. The board found the reentry code 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: Secretarial Authority d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3 e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JFF / 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 AR20170003465 5