1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 July 2017 b. Date Received: 24 July 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was inequitable; because it was based on an isolated incident during sixty-nine months of service with no other adverse action. He was dealing with other issues and was not given the proper medical treatment. He was subsequently diagnosed with PTSD. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time to include the military electronic medical record, the applicant had a medical or behavioral health condition that was mitigating for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. A review of electronic military medical records revealed diagnoses of an Adjustment Disorder and an Opioid Related Disorder. SM was referred for a neuropsychological evaluation on 6 October 2011 to assess for possible cognitive deficits after having a heat related injury in a brigade run on 2 June 2011 resulting in a core body of 106 and some confusion. The medical examiner postponed testing due to pending legal concerns and situational stressors. SM reported depression, anxiety, irritability, and sleep disturbance regarding a pending legal case. He reported there being a January 2011 shooting on post and that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was charged with three counts of premeditated murder and three counts of premeditated assault. The potential sentencing changed from a life sentence to 10 years. SM reported that he was asleep in the back of a vehicle when another passenger fired a gun a several people in another vehicle on post. He reported being intoxicated and not having any recollection of the event and that he was the only person who was acquitted. Medical note dated 3 December 2012 indicated that since the incident SM stopped drinking alcohol and changed his associations. Following the court case in which charges were later dropped, SM completed psych testing on 9 January 2012. Findings revealed no deficits or cognitive concerns. Medical note dated 12 March 2012 indicated SM reported a second incident of being a heat casualty and that he was being referred for an MEB. Medical note dated 3 December 2012 (prior to misconduct) SM reported several ongoing stressors to include the death of his grandmother in October 2012, financial problems because of a loan to travel to grandmother's funeral, relationship problems, and deployment issues to include being on patrols, taking small arms fire, firing his weapon multiple times, and witnessing a vehicle in his convoy hit by an EFP. He also reported a history of losing his home and all his possessions in Hurricane Katrina. He reported high anxiety, irritability, and sleep disturbance. Medical note 9 January 2013 (around the time of misconduct) indicated additional stressors to include student loans, transportation issues due to having his vehicle break down, and relationship stress. SM was first seen by ASAP on 7 February 2013. He reported taking someone else's medication (Percocet) for back pain and denied issues with drugs or alcohol. SM underwent a Medical Evaluation Board on 4 March 2013 and was found to be medically disqualified due to a diagnosis of Heat Stroke with recurrent external Rhabdomyolysis and Residual Heat Intolerance. However, it was determined that SM would be discharged through administrative channels instead of a medical disposition. Following his discharge, SM sough substance abuse treatment from the VA and admitted to an addiction to opioids. He was referred by the VA to attend a month long detox program for his addiction to oxycodone, which he indicated started while on active duty after being prescribed Percocet after an injury to his coccyx in 2010 (at jump school). He reported he continued to obtain and abuse the medication off and on to help with emotional stress, physical pain, and PTSD symptoms. He has been in remission from all substances since 2015. VA records indicated a 50% service connected rating for PTSD. Treatment has entailed an inpatient hospitalization from June- July 2015, medication management and outpatient group and individual therapy. PTSD is related to combat experiences and symptoms include nightmares, hypervigilance, and avoidance behaviors. He does have a diagnosis of Opioid Dependence-In Remission from the VA and has utilized Methadone. Shortly after his discharge from service. In summary, SMs diagnosis of PTSD and other behavioral health conditions can be associated with alcohol and substance abuse; therefore there is a nexus between SMs misconduct (drug use) and his behavioral health conditions. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 21 May 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, post service accomplishments, a prior period of honorable service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. (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 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 13 May 2013 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 February 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he wrongfully used two schedule II controlled substances, oxymorphone and oxycodone, between (3 January 2013 and 8 January 2013). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 March 2008 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 24 April 2013, the separation approving authority reviewed the Administrative Separation Board proceedings and the findings of the Medical Evaluation Board. He approved the findings and recommendations of the Administrative Separation Board and direct the applicant's separation from the US Army with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 October 2009 / 4 years / see the Enlisted Record Brief for period of reenlistment. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 years / 2 years of college / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 25U1P, Signal Support Systems Specialist / 5 years, 9 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 9 August 2007 to 30 September 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, 5 December 2008 to 10 November 2009 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 19 February 2013, for wrongfully using two schedule II controlled substances between (3 January 2013 and 8 January 2013); reduction to PV2 / E-2, forfeiture of $849 pay for two months (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 30 days. However, this Article 15 is not contained in the available record, see unit commander's recommendation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: VA documents undated, relates that the applicant was service connected for PTSD (previously rated as nightmare disorder) was established as directly related to military service. His service connection was granted from 1 June 2015, the date of the examination which first shows a confirmed clinical diagnosis of PTSD. He was assigned a 70 percent evaluation for PTSD. An evaluation of 100 percent was assigned for his PTSD because of hospitalization over 21 days from 15 June 2015, the date of hospital admission. An evaluation of 50 percent is assigned from 1 August 2015, the first of the month following hospital discharge. Subsequently, he was assigned a 50 percent evaluation for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application (six pages); VA rating letter (two pages); DD Form 214; three character letters; Phi Theta Kappa certificate; University of New Orleans transcripts (five pages); and an Associate of Science in Computer Science audit. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted 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. 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 the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. 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 diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 seeks relief contending, his discharge was inequitable; because it was based on an isolated incident during 69 months of service with no other adverse action. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant further contends, he was dealing with other issues and was not given the proper medical treatment. The record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from stress through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. The applicant also contends, he was subsequently diagnosed with PTSD. The applicant submitted VA documents which shows that he was granted an evaluation 70 percent evaluation for PTSD, effective 1 June 2015. An evaluation of 100 percent was assigned for his PTSD because of hospitalization over 21 days from 15 June 2015, the date of hospital admission. Subsequently, he was assigned a 50 percent evaluation for PTSD, effective 1 August 2015. 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): Carlos Sanford (W) Dora Sanford (W) 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 21 May 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, post service accomplishments, a prior period of honorable service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKN / 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 AR20170011124 6