1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 April 2017 b. Date Received: 11 April 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant raised no issues of propriety or equity for the Board's consideration. The applicant deferred to documents, which he submitted with his application. 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 was diagnosed with polysubstance dependence. However, due to the nature of the behavioral health conditions, the OBH does not mitigate the misconduct. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 August 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 / Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 20 February 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 February 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 26 July 2012, he provided a urine sample that tested positive for cocaine metabolics; On 26 September 2012, he received a Field Grade Article 15 for drug use, failure to obey a lawful order, failing to obey a lawful regulation and failing to go to his appointed place of duty. He was reduced to the pay grade of E-4, forfeited $1,181 pay per month for two months and performed extra duty for 45 days; On 10 October 2012, he provided a urine sample that again tested positive for cocaine metabolics; On 16 November 2012, in an attempt to prevent him from engaging in drug use and involving other service members in his actions, his off-base pass privileges were revoked and he was restricted to the limits of Shaw AFB, SC; On 20 November 2012, he did not report for duty and despite the best efforts of the company to avoid restraint, he was placed into pre-trial confinement awaiting Summary Court-Martial for his actions; and, On 7 December 2012, he was found guilty of all charges and specifications. The punishment he received was confinement for 1 month and reduction to the pay grade of E-3. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 6 February 2013, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 6 February 2013, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 February 2013 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 October 2006 / 6 years / On 30 November 2010, the applicant extended his enlistment by five months giving him a new ETS of 26 March 2013. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 25B10, IT Specialist / 10 years, 3 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 25 October 2002 - 24 February 2004 / HD IADT, 29 January 2003 - 4 June 2003 / HD (Concurrent Service) RA, 25 February 2004 - 26 October 2006 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, Portugal, SWA / Iraq (5 November 2008 - 19 October 2009), Kuwait (15 July 2011 - 23 December 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-4, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM- CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: 1 December 2010 - 30 November 2011 / Among The Best 1 December 2011 - 26 September 2012 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 14 August 2012, reflects the applicant tested positive for COC 10494 (cocaine), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 26 July 2012. Report of result of Trial, reflects the applicant was tried in a Summary Court-Martial on 7 December 2012. The applicant was charged with five specifications. The summary of offenses, pleas and findings: Violation of Article 112a, Failure to report: On 26 July 2012, wrongfully use cocaine; guilty consistent with the plea; Between 27 July and 10 October 2012, wrongfully used cocaine; guilty, consistent with the plea. Violation of Article 107, Making a false official statement on19 November 2012; guilty, consistent with the plea. Violation of Article 86, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, on 19 November 2012; guilty, consistent with the plea. Violation of Article 92, failed to obey a lawful order, on 20 November 2012; guilty, consistent with the plea. Sentence: Confinement for 1 month; and, reduction to the pay grade E-3. 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 4 January 2013, 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 Cocaine Dependence. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; Certificate of Treatment; and, a Memorandum to the separation authority. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant provided a certificate, which reflects he completed a Dual Diagnosis Treatment Program. 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's record of service and the documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant raised no issues of propriety for the Board's consideration. 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 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 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 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 did not raise any issues of propriety, however he did submit a copy of a self- authored statement to the separation authority, which reflects he was having personal issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. 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 22 August 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 AR20170009578 1