1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 June 2017 b. Date Received: 3 July 2017 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason and its reentry code for discharge. The counsel on behalf of the applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, when viewing the applicant's otherwise immaculate quality of service and the testimonies of first-line leaders, it is clear that the GD was too harsh and as a result inequitable. Additionally, the applicant's commander deciding to initiate discharge proceedings and recommending an UOTH characterization of service was arbitrary and capricious, in view of active participation in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), and the commander's many misrepresentations to the board with regards to the applicant's quality of service, combat experience, and testimonies of fellow Soldiers. The applicant honorably served, including a combat tour in Iraq. After redeployment, the applicant was found in possession of three prescription pills during a traffic stop search, but never had a failed urinalysis. The applicant immediately entered into a drug rehabilitation treatment. After discharge, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD deriving from combat experience, with a disability rating of 60 percent. The applicant's post-service has been outstanding and continues to help veterans through the local VA. The applicant is in the process of finishing education to become a drug counselor for Soldiers and veterans suffering from addictions. The current discharge prevents the applicant from reenlisting in the service, negatively affects the opportunity to obtain a civilian job in the military or other government positions, does not allow the applicant to obtain certain G.I. Bill benefits and importantly, it stigmatizes an otherwise honorable service. 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 Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Opioid Dependence and Insomnia. VA medical records indicate that the applicant is 80% service connected; 70% for PTSD. VA notes indicate diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety DO, PTSD, Late Effect of Intracranial Injury, Cocaine Dependence, Opioid Dependence, Other Psychoactive Substance Dependence, and Alcohol Abuse. In summary, the applicant does 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 22 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 5 April 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 December 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant unlawfully possessed "Suboxone" without a prescription and unlawfully possessed drug paraphernalia on 13 October 2009. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 December 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: 1 February 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 March 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 January 2008 / 3 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 13F10, Fire Support Specialist / 2 years, 2 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (28 July 2008 to 16 February 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; NDSM; ICM-CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR; CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Civilian Police Report, dated 13 October 2009, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for possession of a narcotic drug and drug paraphernalia. Negative counseling statements for being made aware of his illegal drug use and involuntary separation being initiated. Behavioral health evaluation, dated 1 December 2009, indicates the applicant was cleared for a Chapter 14-12 separation. Administrative Separation Board summarized proceedings with findings and recommendations, and its associated documents, dated 1 February 2010. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 22 October 2009, indicates the applicant and the examiner noted behavioral health issues. Applicant's documentary evidence: VA letter, dated 1 September 2015, indicates the applicant was assigned 30 percent evaluation for posttraumatic headaches and 70 percent for PTSD with residuals, traumatic brain injury. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 27 June 2017, with attorney-authored brief; DD Form 214; applicant-authored statement; summarized administrative board proceedings with findings and recommendations, and notification of board hearing; four character reference/supporting statements; ASAP summary of applicant's enrollment; sworn statement; and VA letter, dated 1 September 2015. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The counsel on behalf of the applicant states, in effect, the applicant continues to serve the veterans today, working in his local VA office and pursuing a degree in drug counseling to help other Soldiers and veterans suffering from dependency issues. 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 and to change the narrative reason and its reentry code for his discharge. 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. By the serious 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 contends the discharge was unjust because his current discharge was too harsh and inequitable considering his otherwise immaculate quality of service as attested to by witness testimonies and including his combat experience, and the commander's separation action with an UOTH characterization of service was arbitrary and capricious, considering the applicant's active participation in ASAP. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. In consideration of the applicant's in-service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, and his post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues such as being diagnosed with PTSD deriving from his combat experience, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues along with notable service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder 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 his current discharge prevents him from reenlisting in the service. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant also contends that his discharge negatively affects his opportunity to obtain a civilian job in the military or other government positions, and it does not allow him to obtain certain G.I. Bill benefits. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Insofar as eligibility for veterans' benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, it 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 requests to change the reason for his separation; however, the narrative reason for his separation is governed by specific directives and as approved by the separation authority. The narrative reason specified by AR 635-5-1 for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is JKQ. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 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 22 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 AR20170010588 4