1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 3 August 2017 b. Date Received: 11 August 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, served in Germany and had enlisted prior to 9/11 and under the Delayed Entry Program. When the applicant saw planes fly into the Twin Towers, the applicant was overcome with sadness, fear and pride for what was about to happen. Upon arriving in Germany, the applicant knew the unit was going to Iraq due to preparing for a year. One year later, the applicant was standing in the desert and was prepared to lay down life as in everyone who takes that oath to serve. The applicant served with some great Soldiers who are still part of life today and with some wonderful leaders who taught the applicant so much. The unit was extended in Iraq for another 3 months, after serving their year-long deployment. When the unit redeployed, they were sent through a cattle call of doctors who asked "Are you okay, do you want to hurt yourself?" While the applicant did not want to hurt himself, the applicant was not ready for dealing with emotions, but now understands, as a 36 year old man. Upon returning from Iraq, the applicant partied all the time, smoked marijuana, took some pills and drank heavily. After failing a urinalysis, the Army was ready to immediately part ways and throw the applicant out like a piece of trash. They sent the applicant to war and disregarded the applicant when they were done with their mission. The applicant was never once asked "What caused you to do this?" "Do you need help?" The applicant was a great Soldier and loved the Army. The applicant acknowledges breaking the rules and suffered the consequences. The punishment consisted of 45 days of extra duty and a forfeiture of pay for two months. The applicant remembers that upon initially arriving to the unit, there was a Soldier who failed multiple urinalyses and was able to stay in the Army. The Army is supposed to be an Army of One; and, a family. The applicant does not turn on family when they make mistakes. The applicant did not hurt anyone, but the shame has affected the applicant to this day. The applicant could have been salvaged and remained a valuable part of the military. The applicant served more than 80 percent of the enlistment and was separated five months before ETS. The applicant would love for the discharge certificate to reflect an honorable discharged. An upgrade to discharge would afford the applicant the opportunity to use the GI Bill. One may say the applicant forfeited that right upon discharge and the applicant does not argue that point. However, the applicant did serve the country proudly and in this country, prisoners are offered a free education and can earn a degree, if they choose, when they have sacrificed nothing, but rather only taken. Since discharge, the applicant has married and has children, and loves them very much. Though, the applicant does not have a letter from a doctor or psychiatrist stating why the applicant made these choices, the applicant was a young man who was trying to party away insecurities and cope with experiences from the desert. Being the man the applicant is today, the applicant would have asked to talk to someone, instead of self-medicating. The man the applicant is today, is not the man who made those choices that altered the future, which the applicant now lives with daily. The applicant will respect whatever the decision the Board renders. The applicant should not be punished for an entire lifetime for a mistake that was made as a young man. The applicant has a family and the GI Bill would afford the opportunity to pursue a degree, while still working a full time job, without having to worry about the extra expense for school. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 March 2019, and by a 3-2 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 / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 4 March 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 17 February 2005, the applicant waived his rights to consult with A JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 October 2001 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 3 years, 4 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (26 April 2003 - 15 April 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, PUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 21 September 2004, reflects the applicant tested positive for AMP 639 (amphetamine); MDA 4015 (methylenedloxy-amphetamine); and, MDMA 64346 (methylenedloxy-methamphetamine), during a urinalysis testing, conducted on 28 August 2004. CID Report of Investigation - Initial Final, dated 7 October 2004, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Use of a Controlled Substance when he submitted a urine specimen, which subsequently tested positive for the presence of ecstasy. CID Report of Investigation - Initial Final, dated 23 November 2004, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Use of a Controlled Substance when he submitted a urine specimen, which subsequently tested positive for THC. FG Article 15, dated 5 January 2005, for wrongfully using methylenedloxy-methamphetamine (ecstasy) (between 24 and 28 August 2004). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $597 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days (suspended). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Mental Status Report, dated 9 February 2005, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and a self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has married and has obtained employment. 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. 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. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), by reason of Misconduct (Drug Abuse), with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The applicant's contentions about his discharge was a form of punishment and that he was thrown out like a piece of trash, were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends that he was young and immature at the time. The record confirms the applicant's youth at the time of enlistment and an apparent lack of maturity. The record also shows the applicant's discrediting entries were incidents of a minor nature. While the applicant's misconduct and poor duty performance were a clear departure from acceptable Army standards, it appears the offenses were partially mitigated by youth and immaturity. The applicant contends that he was self-medicating to cope with the experiences he endured in combat. However, the service record contains no evidence of mental disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant contends he was never given any help with his self-medicating. However, 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. Further, AR 600-85, paragraph 3-8 entitled self-referrals, states the applicant could have self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. 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. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. Based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 March 2019, and by a 3-2 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 AR20170016244 1