1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 April 2017 b. Date Received: 10 October 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, it has been almost six years since being discharged for failing a "random" urinalysis, and by the applicant's choosing. The applicant was not forced to leave and was given the option, but was not told of a less than honorable discharge in a clear manner. At the time of failed urinalysis, the applicant had just returned from a one year deployment in Iraq. The applicant did not join the armed services to ammo up and go fight in a war. The applicant now understands that as an infantryman, that was literally the description of the job. The applicant states upon joining, the applicant was told about a $50,000 sign on bonus, of which, $30,000 would be dispersed throughout the three active years. The applicant completed 2.8 years of a 3-year contract and never received the first installment of $10,000. On multiple occasions over multiple years, the applicant and sergeants, tried to claim the first, second, and third installment. The applicant was initially lied to by the recruiter and after being let down, knew things weren't matching up. The applicant states, while in Iraq, the unit did their jobs in a grand fashion, until one day the applicant was segregated from the platoon along with another member of the squads to go help out as a personal security detail and a gunner position. The applicant looked poorly on this decision as the unit had trained together for a long hard year and believed they should not have been separated. The unit learned and grew to respect each other and display the willingness to lay down their lives for one another. Because of this decision, a respected member of their platoon became a casualty when the applicant was dispatched to help defend a camp that was poorly defended. The applicant believes the platoon member would still be alive today, with a wife and children had it not been for this decision. The applicant states that after redeployment, the applicant was without the unit, friends, and comrades to help the applicant cope and acclimate into a civilian, non-war time world. Many members in the unit, even before this stressful endeavor, took to the bottle, and de-stressed with violence against their wives and loved ones. The applicant respects the fact that Soldiers need a way to cope after deployment, with the reality of daily situations. The applicant is now a Licensed Massage Therapist and understands that everyone is different and what works for one may actually indeed hinder the course of healing for another. The applicant needed a way to cope with the crazy nightmares and wild racing brain activity that plagued the applicant daily. The applicant's way was to simply dance and be surrounded by pretty, gentle things, while still not being completely cut off cold turkey from what plagued the applicant. The applicant used loud music, dancing with friends and using a substance, which clinical studies have shown to help treat PTSD, and anxiety in war veterans. The applicant states it is import for the Board to understand what worked for the applicant to cope and harmed no one in the progress, while off duty. The applicant never brought it to work or had it affect performance. Not once did the applicant beat the wife, assault someone, steal, rape, or drive under the influence, or do anything wrong other than just cope by using marijuana. The applicant states the first sergeant initially buried the file and let it rest, until arriving in Iraq. After a few months, a new first sergeant re-investigated the applicant's case and as a result, the applicant received the maximum punishment under UMCJ action. The applicant now has health issues from the extra duties performed and is currently in the process of pursuing compensation. When redeployed, the applicant only had to ride out the last six months of enlistment. The applicant's coping mechanism helped keep a lid on PTSD, stress, depression, and anxiety. Instead of supporting the applicant, the applicant received "random" drug screens every week. The applicant states this was not random, but rather planned and premeditated to try and single the applicant out and catch the applicant. The applicant states, the "random" acts then turned into a full investigation to find out where the substance was from, which resulted in a few other people's careers being ruined over the matter. Others were caught because they broke the law and brought the chemical on base or were caught with paraphernalia, but not the applicant. The applicant no regrets for these actions, because as an American, the applicant has rights and did nothing to hurt or harm anyone in any way. The applicant now suffers for these actions and disabilities have driven the applicant from working as a successful Licensed Massage Therapist. Because of discharge, the applicant is unable to land a job and cannot afford to keep a roof for the family. The applicant cannot afford to go to school and is currently under Chapter 31, seeking new education based on the injuries sustained during time of service. The applicant is unable to afford the costs of living that the GI bill would be able to cover. The family does not have health care coverage by the military, so they are a constant liability. The applicant further details contentions in a self-authored statement provided with the application for the Board's consideration. 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 Substance Induced Anxiety Disorder, PTSD, and Adjustment Disorder. The applicant has a 50% service-connected rating for PTSD from the VA. In summary, although the applicant has a BH diagnosis, it is not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 10 May 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 (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200 / Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 11 May 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 April 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He tested positive for MDMA, on 8 November 2010 and THC on 17 June 2009. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 18 April 2011, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 August 2008 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 104 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 9 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 14 July 2008 - 28 August 2008 / GD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (5 August 2009 - 31 July 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 20 November 2010, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (4 November 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $423 pay; and, extra duty and restriction for14 days. Laboratory Confirmed Biochemical Test Results, reflects the applicant tested positive for MDMA (ecstasy), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 8 November 2010. The results reflect the applicant had a prior positive test for THC on 17 June 2009. FG Article 15, dated 15 December 2010, for wrongfully using MDMA (between 3 and 8 November 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $723 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 February 2011, 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. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None submitted with the application. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; three photographs; five character statements; VA Rating Decision; nine Certificates of Completion; Diploma; College Transcripts; 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has become a Licensed Massage Therapist; 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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. 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. 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 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 used drugs to cope with his post-deployment stress. 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. The applicant contends that he was issues coping that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. 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. The applicant contends he was not adequately informed about the type of characterization of service he would receive. However, 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 applicant claims the offenses that caused his discharge were minor in nature. However, the service record indicates the applicant committed two discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends the event that caused his discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends that he had good service which included a combat tour. 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. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. The applicant contends he was lied to about his enlistment bonus and never received the monies that he earned. However, the applicant's request does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. 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 and health care. 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize 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. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 10 May 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 AR20170019281 1