1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 May 2017 b. Date Received: 8 May 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, he has changed his life, since his discharge, and he has not been in any trouble. An upgrade would allow him to access his educational benefits to further his education, which would be beneficial for his mental health issues-it will help him with being a productive member of society, and maintain independence and stability in his life, including the lives of his children. He regrets his misconduct. He was too immature and lacked focus to understand the structure and importance of being a Soldier. He relates the change in his behavior to the experience he had in the military-it made him a better person. He worked with at-risk teenagers at a non-profit organization called Youth Entertainment Studios. He went through the fatherhood training programs with the Builders Trade Academy where he received certification in facilities maintenance. He had been homeless off and on for the past eight years. He was referred to VA where entered the "HUD-VASH program." He has received a lot of help through mental health and medical treatments, and support from VA social workers, as well as, peer specialists at his peer support groups. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review in the service record, AHLTA, and JLV, the applicant did not have any behavioral or mental health condition that would mitigate the applicant's offenses. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 14 September 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 February 2003 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 January 2003 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: His inability to comply with military standards, expected of a Soldier. On two separate occasions, between 28 May 2002 and 28 June 2002, and between 30 August 2002 and 30 September 2002, he wrongfully used marijuana. Between 5 June 2001 and 17 July 2001, he was absent without leave. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 30 January 2003 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 February 2003 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 November 1999 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 3 years, 3 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 22 March 2001, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on five separate occasions, on 12 March 2001, 8 January 2001, 7 December 2000, 1 December 2001, and 24 October 2000. The punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty and restriction. FG Article 15, dated 25 July 2001, for absenting himself from his unit on 5 June 2001 and remained absent until 16 July 2001. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $521 and 30 days of correctional custody. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 27 July 2001, set aside the punishment of forfeiture of $521 and 30 days of correctional custody, imposed on 25 July 2001. DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing), dated 11 July 2002, indicates the specimen collected on 28 June 2002, on an "IR" (Inspection, Random) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for marijuana. FG Article 15, dated 9 October 2002, for wrongfully using marijuana between 28 May 2002 and 28 June 2002. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $552 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. CID Report, dated 1 November 2002, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongfully using marijuana. DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing), dated 7 October 2002, indicates the specimen collected on 30 September 2002, on an "IU" (Inspection, Unit) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for marijuana. FG Article 15, dated 8 January 2003, for wrongfully using marijuana between 20 August 2002 and 30 September 2002. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $552 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. Memorandum, dated 10 October 2002, indicates the applicant was evaluated by behavioral health services, which determined he was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None noted on DD Form 214 / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 26 July 2002, indicates the applicant noted behavioral health issues. The applicant's documentary evidence: VA Medical Center letter, dated 3 April 2017, indicates the applicant was receiving mental health and medical treatments. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 8 May 2017, and two letters of support from VA Medical Center. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, he worked with at-risk teenagers at a non-profit organization called Youth Entertainment Studios, and he went through the fatherhood training programs with the Builders Trade Academy where he received certification in facilities maintenance. 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 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 available record of service, and 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 and incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence that the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. In consideration of the applicant's post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill to further his education. 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 he regrets his misconduct due to being immature and lacking focus to understand the structure and importance of being a Soldier 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 he had been homeless for eight years. However, eligibility for housing supportive program benefits for Veterans does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should remain in contact with the local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for continued assistance. Additionally, all veterans at risk for homelessness or attempting to exit homelessness can request immediate assistance by calling the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans hotline at 1-877-424-3838 for free and confidential assistance. The applicant's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues, and being treated with the support of VA social workers, as well as, peer specialists at his peer support groups, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 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 14 September 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 AR20170008216 1