1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 August 2017 b. Date Received: 7 August 2017 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests that an under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable and a change to narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, would like an upgrade of discharge for the purpose of being able to use his GI Bill benefits to educate oneself. The applicant contends that the JAG attorney swore to the applicant an honorable discharge if the applicant complied with all military standards without insubordination after making the one but worst mistake of life. The applicant loved the Army, loved healing the sick, and feeling a sense of duty. The applicant wanted to retire, but was prescribed a psychostimulant "Adderall" by recommendation of a PA. The applicant would have never behaved un-Soldierly before being given that drug, by none other than an Army Practitioner. The applicant failed a UA for marijuana just after a 12 month tour in Iraq. The applicant made reference to depression and a divorce while on tour. Mixed with the meds and with PTSD from the IDF plane crash landing added to the misconduct. The applicant was a good Soldier at heart who did a tour and did it well and believes the achievements and accolades outweigh the short-comings. The applicant received an ARCOM for excellence as a medic in Iraq, was Soldier of the quarter, and honor graduated in basic. 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 diagnosis of ADHD, an existed prior to service condition, and an Adjustment Disorder. The applicant has had no VA encounters. In summary, the applicant did not have a BH diagnosis that was mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 March 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 12 September 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 August 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates on 4 August 2011, the applicant was charged with the following offenses: Behaving with disrespect toward CPT E.A.D., his superior commissioned officer, by saying to him "What the fuck are you looking at" and "I am fucking done with you," or words to that effect; Being disrespectful in language toward First Sergeant W.W.S., a superior non-commissioned officer, by saying to him "fuck you" or words to that effect; and Wrongfully using marijuana between 16 May 2011 and 14 June 2011. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 August 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 31 August 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 October 2010 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 2 years, 6 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 3 February 2009 to 28 October 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (22 March 2010 to 12 March 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS-2, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Incomplete CG Article 15, dated 18 July 2011, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 31 March 2011, 28 April 2011, 10 May 2011, 12 May 2011, 13 May 2011, and 30 June 2011. The document does not indicated what punishment was imposed. Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 20 July 2011, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC102 during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing conducted on 14 June 2011. Personnel Action, dated 1 September 2011, reference a change of duty status from confined by civilian authorities to present for duty 1 September 2011. Counseling for testing positive for THC on a urinalysis test dated 14 June 2011. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: (29 July 2011 to 1 September 2011) j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Several DD Form's 293's and DD Form 149's; several certificates of training; recognition of affiliation; certificates for award of the ARCOM, AAM; recommendation for award of the ARCOM; and back ground check documents. 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 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered 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 "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "KFS" 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 that his under other than honorable conditions discharge to upgrade to honorable and a change of his narrative reason for discharge. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of several offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents several acts of achievement however, it appears these acts of achievement did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 with an under other than honorable characterization of service. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this chapter is "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial," and the separation code is "KFS." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant seeks relief contending that his JAG attorney swore to him a honorable discharge if he complied with all military standards without insubordination after making the one but worst mistake of his life and he did. He loved the Army, he loved healing the sick, and feeling a sense of duty. He wanted to retire, he was prescribed a psychostimulant "Adderall" by recommendation of a PA he served under. He would have never behaved un-Soldierly before being given that drug, by none other than an Army Practitioner. He contends he failed a UA for marijuana just after a 12 month tour in Iraq. He made reference to his depression, his divorce while on tour, mixed with the meds, mixed with PTSD from IDF plane crash landing added to his misconduct. He contends he was a good Soldier at heart who did a tour and did it well and believes his achievements and accolades outweigh his short-comings. He received an ARCOM for excellence as a medic in Iraq, was Soldier of the quarter, and honor graduated in basic. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered and the applicant is to be commended. However, it appears this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge at the time of discharge as shown by the repeated incidents of misconduct or by the negative counseling statement and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Although the applicant claimed his misconduct was a result of medical issues, 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. 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. Furthermore, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, the applicant 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 or general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to use his GI Bill benefits to education himself. However, eligibility for veteran's 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record 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 13 March 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 AR20170015715 1