1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 June 2017 b. Date Received: 29 June 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, based on the findings of the VAMC, the issues surrounding the actions can be contributed to untreated Substance Disorder during the years of service. As to the anxiety/anger problems, and PTSD, several issues caused the applicant to leave the area that was causing a stressful situation. The applicant was not seen by a doctor to help manage the diagnoses of 3 June 2010, for Psychosis/Mental Illness. The desertion, the fights, total misconduct as categorized in many reports stemmed from lack of treatment. The applicant would have been a better Soldier if proper medical treatment was administered. The applicant was young and impressionable following my peers upon enlisting. The substance usage was not a factor prior to enlistment. The intake records can contest to that statement. The applicant accepts some blame for the actions. The applicant responded by being AWOL on a few occasions and acting out physically to protect oneself from other activities. Many comrades engaged in the same practices but they were a lot older and could manage better. An upgrade would enable the applicant to receive VA compensation to provide care for the family. The VA granted access to the medical center for the PTSD/Anxiety, Anger problems, Psychosis/Mental Illness, which were contributing factors leading to discharge. The medical issues profoundly impacts the applicant's well-being. Given the extent of illness, the applicant could be rated 100 percent disabled Veteran based on factors while serving contributing to the state of mind. 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 diagnoses of Cannabis Abuse, Occupational Problem, and a Substance Abuse Disorder. Post-service, the applicant does not have a service-connected disability rating from the VA and has no history of a PTSD diagnosis. The VA decision rating indicated that a service-connection for a Substance Use Disorder was established (also claimed as PTSD, Anxiety, and Anger Problems) for the purpose of treatment eligibility (disability ratings are not given for Substance Use Disorders). In summary, the applicant did not have 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 20 February 2019, 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 1 March 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 September 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He wrongfully used marijuana between 28 December 2009 and 28 January 2010, and between 13 July 2010 and 13 August 2010. He was absent without leave from 27 March 2009 to 4 April 2009, and from 7 July 2009 to 20 July 2009. He assaulted J.J.A.A and D.R.P, his wife by marriage, and wrongfully damaged private property on divers occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 21 September 2010 (contingently waived administrative separation board upon receiving no less favorable than a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service, but it was denied on 16 November 2010) (5) Administrative Separation Board: 12 January 2011, Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 February 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 June 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 25U10, Signal Support Systems Specialist / 2 years, 5 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: MP Report, dated 28 September 2008, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for simple assault-consummated by a battery, wrongful damaging of private property, and larceny of private property. MP Report, dated 10 November 2008, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for simple assault and wrongful damaging of private property. MP Report, dated 5 May 2009, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for simple assault. MP Report, dated 20 May 2009, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for simple assault-consummated by a battery. MP Report, dated 17 October 2009, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for a domestic battery. An Electronic Copy of the DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing), dated 1 March 2010, indicates the specimen collected on 28 January 2010, on an "IR" (Inspection, Random) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for "THC." Negative counseling statement for wrongful use and possession of controlled substances. FG Article 15, dated 6 April 2010, for wrongfully using marijuana between 28 December 2009 and 28 January 2009. The punishment consisted of a a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $723 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action, dated 10 May 2010, indicates his duty status changed from PDY to AWOL, effective 27 March 2009, followed by status being changed from AWOL to PDY, effective 4 April 2009. DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action, dated 10 May 2010, indicates his duty status changed from PDY to AWOL, effective 7 July 2009, followed by status being changed from AWOL to PDY, effective 29 July 2009. Mental Health Evaluation, dated 3 June 2010, indicates an "Axis I" diagnostic findings of "Substance Use Disorder" DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action, dated 5 August 2010, indicates his duty status changed from PDY to AWOL, effective 4 August 2010, followed by status being changed from AWOL to PDY, effective 12 August 2010. An Electronic Copy of the DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing), dated 20 August 2010, indicates the specimen collected on 13 August 2010, on an "IR" (Inspection, Random) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for "THC." DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action, dated 23 October 2010, indicates his duty status changed from PDY to Civilian Confinement, effective 23 October 2010, followed by status being changed from Civilian Confinement to PDY, effective 26 October 2010. DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action, dated 15 December 2010, indicates his duty status changed from PDY to AWOL, effective 15 December 2010, followed by status being changed from AWOL to DFR, effective 14 January 2011, and AWOL to PDY, effective 26 January 2011. DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action, dated 28 January 2011, indicates his duty status changed from PDY to AWOL, effective 27 January 2011, followed by status being changed from AWOL to Civilian Confinement, effective 18 February 2011, and that he was being held pending charges. Report of Proceedings by Board of Officers with summarized transcript of witness testimonies, reported the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board that convened on 12 January 2011. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 104 days (AWOL from 27 March 2009 to 3 April 2009, for 8 days; from 7 July 2009 to 19 July 2009, for 13 days; from 8 August 2010 to 11 August 2010, for 4 days; from 23 October 2010 to 25 October 2010, for 3 days; from 15 December 2010 to 25 January 2011, for 42 days; and from 27 January 2011 to 1 March 2011, for 34 days) / No specific information on mode of return for each occurrences j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Applicant's documentary evidence: VA Rating Decision, dated 8 April 2016, in pertinent part, indicates VA established eligibility for treatment for service-connection for substance use disorder (also claims as PTSD, anxiety, and anger problems). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 26 June 2017; Authorization to Disclose Information to the Department of Veterans Affairs, dated 23 June 2017; General Release of Medical Provider Information to the Department of Veterans Affairs; and VA Rating Decision, dated 8 April 2016. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. 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. 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 "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), Misconduct (Drug Abuse). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKK" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. 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 general (under honorable conditions) or 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 the 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 that the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant's contentions regarding his untreated behavioral health issues which contributed to his misconduct, 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 applicant contends that he was young and impressionable at the time. 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 an upgrade of his discharge would allow him benefits to help care for him and his family. However, eligibility for veterans' 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 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 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 20 February 2019, 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 AR20170010419 4