1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 May 2017 b. Date Received: 30 June 2017 c. Counsel: None d Previous Records Review: 16 December 2011, AR20110010976 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, the applicant did not transition well upon returning from Afghanistan-the applicant self-medicated and ended up with a drug problem. Within the year prior to the discharge, a psychiatrist advised that the applicant had PTSD; however, it was never treated. Although also advised the applicant would receive a GD, the applicant received a UOTH. After years of having drug issues, the applicant finally received help and for over two years, has been drug and alcohol free. The applicant's sponsor in the recovery program has aided in helping the applicant with PTSD. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) files indicate the applicant was seen for a command directed mental service evaluation in May 2009. VA medical record indicates that the applicant screened negative for PTSD. Based on the available information, the applicant does not have a mitigating Behavioral Health condition for the misconduct of which led to separation. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 30 July 2018, 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, a prior period of honorable service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of OBH), and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25, 26, 27, and 28, contain erroneous entries. In view of the erroneous entries, the Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 25, separation authority changed to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, b. block 26, separation code changed to JKQ, c. block 27, reentry code to 3, and d. block 28, narrative reason for separation changed to Misconduct (Serious Offense). (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: 14 June 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 5 May 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On two separate occasions, in violations of Article 86, UCMJ, he failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time, to wit: 0530 accountability formation for the brigade mandatory run on 18 December 2008, and 0630 accountability formation in front of the company headquarters on 5 January 2009. On three separate occasions, In violations of Article 112a, UCMJ, he wrongfully used cocaine between 8 May 2009 and 11 May 2009, 19 July 2009 and 22 July 2009, and 20 March 2010 and 23 March 2010. He pled guilty to violating Articles 112a and 123a, UCMJ, at a summary court-martial on 31 March 2010. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 5 May 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Unconditionally waived in exchange for his Offer to Plead Guilty, dated 26 February 2010, upon referral of court-martial charges to a summary court-martial. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 May 2010 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 February 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / 13 years / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11C1P, Indirect Fire Infantryman / 4 years, 1 month, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (19 April 2006 to 12 February 2008) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (13 January 2007 to 13 April 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3; NDSM; ACM-CS; GWOTSM; NCOPDR; ASR; OSR; NATO MDL; CIB g. Performance Ratings: 1 May 2008 thru 30 April 2009, Among the Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions. An electronic copy of DD Form 2624, dated 15 January 2009, indicates the specimen collected on 6 January 2009, on an "IR" (Inspection, Random) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for cocaine. CG Article 15, dated 17 February 2009, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on two separate occasions, on 18 December 2008, and 5 January 2009. The punishment consisted 14 days of extra duty and restriction. An electronic copy of DD Form 2624, dated 20 May 2009, indicates the specimen collected on 11 May 2009, on a "PO" (Probable Cause) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for cocaine. FG Article 15, dated 5 June 2009, for wrongfully using cocaine between 8 May 2009 and 11 May 2009. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $1,012 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. An electronic copy of DD Form 2624, dated 29 July 2009, indicates the specimen collected on 22 July 2009, on an "IU" (Inspection, Unit) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for cocaine. An electronic copy of DD Form 2624, dated 8 December 2009, indicates the specimen collected on 24 November 2009, on an "IR" (Inspection, Random) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for cocaine. Report of Result of Trial with its associated charge sheet indicates that on 31 March 2010, the applicant was found guilty of the following charges that were preferred on 20 February 2010, and referred to trial by summary court-martial on 16 March 2010: Charge I: two specifications of violating Article 112a, UCMJ, for wrongfully using cocaine between 3 January 2009 and 6 January 2009, and 15 June 2009 and 24 November 2009. Charge II: 10 specifications of violating Article 123a, UCMJ, for wrongfully and unlawfully making certain checks with while knowing that he did not have sufficient funds on 17 July 2009, for $100; 18 July 2009, for $100 each of two checks; 19 July 2009, for $100 each of two checks; 20 July 2009, for $100; 22 July 2009 x 2, for $100 and $100 each of three checks; 27 and 28 July 2009, for $100 each of four checks; 29 and 30 July 2009 x 2, both period for $100 each of three checks on two separate occasions; and 24 July 2009 and 1 August 2009, $100 each of 15 checks. The sentence consisted of a reduction to E-1. The summary court-martial included an Offer to Plead Guilty, dated 26 February 2010, with its stipulation of pleading guilty to the aforementioned charges and as part of the offer, the applicant agreed to waive his right to an administrative separation board upon being notified of a separation proceedings with a UOTH discharge. An electronic copy of DD Form 2624, dated 31 March 2010, indicates the specimen collected on 23 March 2010, on an "IU" (Inspection, Unit) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for cocaine. Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 19 April 2010, indicates the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. FG Article 15, dated 20 April 2010, for wrongfully using cocaine between 20 March 2010 and 23 March 2010. The punishment consisted of 45 days of extra duty and restriction. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 10 May 2017; character reference/employment letter, dated 10 May 2017; character reference statement; and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant's documentary evidence shows he is currently employed. 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. 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). 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, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. The service record further reflects that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, separation authority as AR 635-200, paragraph 14- 12c(2), block 26 separation code as "JKK," block 27 reentry code as "4," and block 28, narrative reason for separation as "Misconduct." Therefore and as approved by the separation authority, the following administrative corrections are warranted: a. block 25, separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c; b. block 26, separation code to JKQ; c. block 27, reentry code to 3; and d. block 28, reason for separation to Misconduct (Serious Offense). 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 he self-medicated and ended up with a drug problem due to an untreated PTSD diagnosis by a psychiatrist, and that his PTSD contributed to his misconduct. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Although the applicant is scheduled for a personal appearance hearing, it would still be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., documentary evidence of any behavioral health or PTSD diagnoses), for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character and performance, while recognizing his good conduct after leaving the Army. 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. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): None b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 30 July 2018, 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, a prior period of honorable service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of OBH), and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25, 26, 27, and 28, contain erroneous entries. In view of the erroneous entries, the Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 25, separation authority changed to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, b. block 26, separation code changed to JKQ, c. block 27, reentry code to 3, and d. block 28, narrative reason for separation changed to Misconduct (Serious Offense). 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General Under Honorable Conditions c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Serious Offense) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKQ / 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 AR20170010902 6