1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 April 2017 b. Date Received: 1 May 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, served as a Soldier and mechanic and believes the discharge was unfair and improper because the Army did not follow equal guidelines when they discharged the applicant. The applicant believes the discharge was not properly handled because this was the only offense after years of faithful service to the country. When the applicant received the Article 15, the applicant did not realize that would discharge the applicant from the Army. While serving extra duty, the applicant found out other Soldiers were given the opportunity to stay in under the same offense. The chain of command instructed the applicant on how to handle this situation, but was never offered rehabilitation or told about being able to take advantage of the program for alcohol and drug abuse prevention and control program (ADAPCP). The applicant wishes to have known all the options, so the applicant could have had a chance to stay in the Army and be a better Soldier and fight for the country. At the time of discharge, the chain of command told the applicant the discharge would be upgraded after six months to honorable automatically, which was not true. The applicant states that was the most stressful time in life and although the applicant did self-medicate, only with marijuana, the applicant was also suffering from an unfit medical condition. At the time, the applicant did not understand PTSD and it was the only reason the applicant turned to marijuana. The applicant was just stressed out, overworked, tired, and was not using better judgement. The applicant states that smoking took the edge of military life so the applicant could cope with the reality of being deployed. The applicant states, the record of achievements reflects the applicant was a great Soldier, who had received many medals and certificates of achievement. The applicant now knows smoking marijuana was not the best decision or proper behavior. The applicant honestly thought this was making the best decision fin order to survive the Army life. It helped to calm anxiety after deployments and helped the applicant sleep, when it was safe to rest. Being a veteran gives the applicant pride and is actively seeking treatment for PTSD. Sharing this story has been humbling and values being able to speak about the experience in the Army with family, friends, and most importantly other veterans. Sharing this story with others is freeing and the applicant is able to paint a picture of the experiences in the Army that is hard for others to see. Sharing this story has helped the applicant move on with life and be a good father, brother, son, and Soldier for life. The applicant spent almost three years as a homeless veteran because of not knowing about the PTSD. Now, the applicant has taken life back and is currently enrolled at UTI (Universal Technical Institute) seeking ASE certifications in diesel and automotive repair. The applicant has also found other ways to cope with stress through exercise, being an active student, and speaking about truths, which have been a great outlet. The applicant seeks an upgrade to better life, for peace of mind and for better opportunities for the applicant and daughter. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate no information regarding the applicant. The applicant has a 70% service-connected rating for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with mTBI, Alcohol Dependence, and homelessness. In summary, the applicant had a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 May 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnoses of PTSD, TBI, and OBH), homelessness, and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. (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: 1 October 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: undated (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He received a Field Grade Article 15, on 30 June 2004, for use of illegal drugs. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 August 2004 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 November 2001 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 63B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 2 years, 10 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (24 June 2002 - 24 December 2002); Iraq (6 April 2003 - 5 April 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 28 May 2004, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 33 (marijuana), during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing, conducted on 17 May 2004. FG Article 15, dated 30 June 2004, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 18 April and 17 May 2004). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $596 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Mental Health Evaluation, dated 13 July 2004, reflects the applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, dated 18 September 2017, which reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent disability for PTSD (PTSD - Combat/fear - Easing Standard). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; four letters of support; Student Progress Report; and, VA Rating Decision. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he is currently attending UTI (Universal Technical Institute), seeking his ASE certifications in diesel and automotive repair. 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 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. 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 VA has granted him a service connected disability for PTSD, which was undiagnosed at the time of his discharge. He contends it was this undiagnosed PTSD, which affected his behavior and led to his discharge. 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 13 July 2004, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The applicant contends that other Soldiers with similar offenses were not discharged. 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 was not offered the opportunity for rehabilitation. However, 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 an upgrade of his discharge will allow him 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 applicant contends that he had good service which included two combat tours. 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 for his accomplishments. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good performance; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 17 May 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnoses of PTSD, TBI, and OBH), homelessness, and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. 10. 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, paragraph 14-12a e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKN / 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 AR20170007527 1