1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 28 November 2017 b. Date Received: 4 December 2017 c. Counsel: 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, was not properly evaluated after being hit by an IED. The applicant states, the brain was still discombobulated and caused traumatic problems. The condition caused the applicant to begin smoking marijuana. The applicant does claim it was right to smoke marijuana, but wishes one would have had help. The applicant has lost the right to serve the people, but is trying to learn in school, so the applicant can serve again in a different way. The applicant has taken action regarding the PTSD and smoking marijuana by seeing a doctor at a VA clinic and has already suffered enough. 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 no BH diagnoses while on active duty. The applicant is 70% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with mTBI, Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, Cannabis Abuse, PTSD, Polysubstance Dependence, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Cannabis Use Disorder, Opioid Use Disorder, Benzo Use Disorder, and Personality Disorder. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 March 2020, 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: 2 December 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 November 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant wrongfully used marijuana between on or about 29 August 2011, and on or about 29 September 2011; The applicant was disrespectful towards 1SG S. R. on or about 31 October 2011; The applicant assaulted SGT G. F. on or about 23 September 2011; The applicant was disrespectful towards SFC T. W. on or about 18 August 2011; The applicant violated a lawful general order on or about 1 April 2011, by wrongfully possessing alcohol underage; The applicant made a false official statement on or about 1 April 2011, by telling SGT P. K. that he was 21 years old; The applicant unlawfully entered a barracks roof multiple times between on or about 10 March 2011 and on or about 29 March 2011, by carding the door; and, The applicant was disrespectful towards SGT C. D. on or about 26 January 2011. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 9 November 2011, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 November 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 October 2008 / 3 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / GED / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 12B10, Combat Engineer / 3 years, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (7 September 2009 - 7 September 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, ARCOM, NDSM, ASR, OSR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 1 September 2009, for without authority absent himself from his unit (between 6 and 16 August 2009); willfully disobeyed a lawful order (23 May 2009); and, failure to obey a lawful order by wrongfully leaving the state of Washington, without obtaining a written pass. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $326 pay; and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 August 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. Military Police Report, dated 26 September 2011, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Assault (On Post); Disrespect To NCO (On Post); Failure to Obey Order (On Post). Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 5 October 2011, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 22 (marijuana), during an Inspection Unit (IU), urinalysis testing, conducted on 29 September2011. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 10 days (AWOL, 6 August 2009 - 15 August 2009) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; ExitCare Patient Information; Combat Award Checklist. 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. 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 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, 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 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 was suffering from the effects of an IED, which affected his behaver and led to his discharge. However, the service record contains no evidence of 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 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 11 March 2020, 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 AR20180001272 1