1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 December 2017 b. Date Received: 16 January 2018 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 pertinent part and in effect, requested a hardship discharge in January 2017, but received no support or effort from the chain of command, and due to the circumstances and stress, failed a urinalysis test. Shortly after returning from Afghanistan, the three-month-old son suddenly passed away on 29 December 2016. The applicant was under heavy stress dealing with the wife's depression, and three-year-old daughter constantly asking for the baby brother. When the wife became suicidal, the applicant moved her and their daughter back to Georgia. The applicant received no help or guidance from the unit while awaiting the request for early release from the Army. It was not until in April 2017, the unit started working on separation for the bad decision the applicant made by smoking marijuana to escape everything for a night. It took the unit nine months before the applicant was separated. During that period, the applicant was mistreated, verbally abused, mentally destroyed, and humiliated while still trying to be the best one could be for oneself and the family. Since discharge, the applicant struggled with securing a livable wage and a deserving employment to the point of becoming desperate to help provide for the family. The applicant attempted on multiple occasions to reenlist in the Army, but every recruiter told the applicant there was nothing they could do with a reentry code of 4. The applicant tried many different resources, but found no luck for the future while being labeled as a "drug abuser." Despite, the applicant is currently attending school to earn a BA degree in homeland security. The applicant still has a clean criminal background, but with all the rejections the applicant has been receiving, the applicant fears the degree and clean background would not be enough to look past the current DD Form 214. 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 Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood. The applicant does not have any VA records available for review. In summary, the applicant does not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 6 March 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of OBHI), severe-family matters, post-service accomplishments, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200, Paragraph 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 22 August 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 June 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant wrongfully used marijuana between 19 March 2017 and 19 April 2017. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 August 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 July 2014 / 3 years, 22 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 3 years, 1 month, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (22 June 2016 to 30 September 2016) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; NDSM; ACM-CS; ASR; NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An Electronic Copy of the DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing), dated 2 May 2017, indicates the specimen collected on 19 April 2017, on an "IU" (Inspection, Unit) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for "THC." FG Article 15, dated 18 May 2017, for wrongfully using marijuana between 19 March 2017 and 19 April 2017. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $799 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 20 Aril 2017, indicates the applicant noted behavioral health issues. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 16 May 2017, indicates a "BH Diagnoses" of an "Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood/Bereavement." Further comments stated9 that the applicant "does have a behavioral health condition that command can consider in matters in extenuation/mitigation in relation to the basis of the administrative separation. [The applicant] reported difficulty managing his stress and emotions following the death of his son, which appears to have resulted in depressed mood and poor decision making. Anxiety is in relation to current Chapter and worry about his future. Misconduct should be managed through administrative/disciplinary channels." The applicant was "cleared for behavioral health for any administrative action deemed appropriate by [his] command." 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 7 December 2017, with two separation applicant-authored statements; Memorandum for Record, dated 22 February 2017; MILPER Message 17-0421; Transmittal Record with DA Form 4187, dated 29 March 2017, university acceptance letter, dated 17 February 2017, and email correspondence; ERB; LES; ASAP Enrollment; Certificate of Death; Request for Separation Due to Hardship, dated 19 April 2017, with Chaplain's memorandum, dated 26 April 2017; Background Check (ADAPT Attendance); Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624; Laboratory Rehabilitation Testing Verification; applicant's statement; Report of Mental Status Evaluation; and 11 character reference/supporting statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, he is currently attending school for earn a BA degree in homeland security, and he maintainsl has a clean criminal background. 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. 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 "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), Misconduct (Drug Abuse). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKK" 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 an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable, and to change the reentry code. The applicant's available/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 the serious incident of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because he requested a hardship discharge in January 2017, but received no support or effort from his chain of command, and due to the circumstances and stress of dealing with his wife's behavioral health issues due to their son's sudden death in December 2016, and receiving no help from his chain of command, he failed a urinalysis test. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge and to change the reentry code. Insofar as the applicant's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues which involved using drugs to help him escape from his stress on a night, were carefully considered. A careful review of the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues along symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. The applicant contends that he was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. Although he sought counsel with a chaplain, he had many other 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 has expressed his desire and attempts to rejoin the Service, to have better job opportunities, and the benefits of the GI Bill. However, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4. An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is not eligible to reenlist. Furthermore, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. As to eligibility for veterans' benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, such eligibility 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. Further, his request to changing the reentry code extends to changing the reason for his separation, because the reentry code corresponds with the narrative reason for his discharge. However, the narrative reason for his separation is governed by specific directives and as approved by the separation authority. The narrative reason specified by AR 635-5-1 for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2) is "Misconduct (Drug Abuse)," and the separation code is JKK. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character, and 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. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incident of misconduct, and his post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re- characterization 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 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 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 6 March 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of OBHI), severe-family matters, post-service accomplishments, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKN / RE-3 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 AR20180002498 1