1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 December 2017 b. Date Received: 22 December 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, in 2004, he made the biggest mistake of his military career. His decision, put his family, service men and the country at risk by his actions. He states, when he was discharged from the Army, he made up his mind that he wanted to make a difference. Since discharge, he has been diagnosed with PTSD, which he chooses not to use as an excuse for his behaviors of the past and the future, but it does explain the change in his character at the time. He is not the person that he was in 2004 and he has sought treatment for his PTSD; and, he continues to work towards changing his life for the better. He states, an upgrade would enable him to attend school. His career path is to work with youth and to help them discover who they are and where they are going. He honors his status as a veteran and he is proud to say that he served. He wants to continue to give back to his country through his story and his efforts of change by speaking with the youth and obtaining a degree in education. He knows that having an education is where he will reflect the biggest impact for himself and the youth that he encounters. Currently, he is heavily involved with his son, who is 15 years old. The applicant coaches football at his son's school and he works with the youth at multiple schools in the inner city school system. Additionally, he works with students in the Toledo and Cincinnati area and he has graduated from the Culinary School and Sinclair Community College in 2017. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time to include the military electronic medical record, there was insufficient evidence to determine if the applicant had a mitigating medical or behavioral health condition for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. A review of electronic military medical records found limited behavioral health records due to his period of service. A Medical note dated 19 July 2004 indicated SM was seen as a walk-in to the behavioral health clinic for symptoms of depression and anxiety. He was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder related to several stressors to include the death of 2 close friends, grandmothers' terminal illness, financial problems, and plans to get married soon. Mental Status Eval dated 7 March 2005 indicated SM was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action. Post Service- An emergency room medical record dated 23 May 2007 indicated SM had several positive UAs for marijuana. He continued to use marijuana regularly and endorsed depression, irritability, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts about Iraq. He also endorsed suicidal ideation without a plan and intermittent auditory hallucinations of gunshots or people screaming. According to VA records, SM has diagnoses of PTSD, Marijuana Abuse, and an Adjustment Disorder. He does not have a disability rating. In summary, there is a lack of evidence to determine mitigation. SMs misconduct occurred prior to deployment and it is unclear if he was referred to ASAP or had any substance abuse treatment prior to or following Iraq. He had one documented behavioral health visit for depression also prior to deployment, so there is possibly a nexus between his use of marijuana and symptoms of depression in response to several life stressors; however, more information is needed to make that determination. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 18 May 2018, 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 / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 2 August 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: Undated (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He tested positive for THC on 7 January 2005. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Undated (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 June 2005 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 November 2002 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 93 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 2 years, 8 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (11 January 2005 - 25 July 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, WOTEM, WOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 30 July 2004, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (16 April 2004); wrongfully used marijuana (between 29 March and 28 April 2004); failed to stop at a posted stop sign (11 February 2004); and, improperly parked his vehicle (13 April 2004). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $669 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty for 45 days. CID Report of Investigation - Initial Final, dated 10 March 2005, 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 during the conduct of a unit urinalysis test, which subsequently tested positive for marijuana. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 18 January 2005, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 33 (marijuana), during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing, conducted on 7 January 2005. FG Article 15, dated 22 April 2005, for wrongfully using marijuana (2 January 2004 (sic)). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $617 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 7 March 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. The applicant was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder with mixed emotions. The applicant provided a copy of his VA medical treatment records, dated 23 May 2007, which reflects the applicant was treated for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; and, copies of his medical treatment records. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: He states, he is heavily involved with his son and coaches football at his school. He works with the youth at multiple schools in the inner city school system and with students in the Toledo and Cincinnati area. He has graduated from the Culinary School and Sinclair Community College. 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 the Veterans Administration has been treated post-service for PTSD. He contends that it was this conditions that affected his behavior and led to his discharge. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 7 March 2005, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. 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. 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 18 May 2018, 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 AR20180001165 1