1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 December 2017 b. Date Received: 11 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 effect, that the discharge was the result of an inequitable discharge process. The applicant contends no consideration was taken for the medical status and adequate health care process. Suspected of discrimination before, during and after a (TBI) accident. Irregular process before discharge process and the medical status with cognitive deficits to understand the situation and reason for discharge, to appeal appropriately. The applicant is currently receiving a 100% service connected disability. The applicant believes the DD Form 214 should be amended due to years of good conduct and service until the end. The applicant also has rights with an appropriate discharge that was lost due to an inappropriate discharge process and would like to recover those benefits for oneself and family. The discharge should be upgrade because of true and moral issues. 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 due to the period of service, no active duty records were available to review. The applicant is 50% service-connected for Major Depressive Disorder with psychotic features from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Cognitive Disorder, mTBI, and Major Depressive Disorder. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnosis is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 August 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnoses of TBI and OBH). Therefore, 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 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. (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: 18 March 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 December 2003 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: testing positive for marijuana by way of a chemical analysis on 2 June 2003 (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 December 2003 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 March 2004 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) It should be noted; On 11 February 2004, the Commanding General of Fort Carson, Colorado, directed that the applicant be processed under administrative separation provisions, Chapter 14-12c(2), misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs, IAW paragraph 1-33, AR 635-200. Although Medical Evaluation Board findings indicated that the applicant's case be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board, he determined that an administrative separation UP Chapter 14- 12c(2) for misconduct was appropriated in the applicant's case. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 May 2001 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42L10, Administrative Specialist / 2 years, 9 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document-Drug Testing), dated 11 June 2003, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing conducted on 2 June 2003. CID Report, dated 22 September 2003, showing the applicant was the subject of investigation for the wrongful use of marijuana. FG Article 15, dated 21 August 2003, for the wrongful use of marijuana between 4 May 2003 and 2 June 2003. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $721 pay per month for two months (suspended), and extra duty for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 4 December 2003, shows the applicant met the retention standard prescribed in Chapter 3, AR 40-501 and there was no psychiatric disease or defect that warrant disposition through medical channels. He was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. The applicant was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriated by his command. Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 7 January 2004, show the applicant was diagnosed with Lumbosacral and coccygeal spine; chronic low back pain, 3-39h and major depressive disorder, recurrent with psychotic symptoms, 3-32. Additional diagnoses that did not fall below retention standards; personality disorder NOS and irritable bowel syndrome. The applicant was referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status, dated 13 June 2003, shows the applicant received back and neck injuries, when he stopped at an intersection, his vehicle was rear ended by another car, pushing his car forward. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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 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. Furthermore, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, the applicant compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. 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 diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 seeks relief contending that his discharge was the result of an inequitable discharge process. He contends no consideration was taken for his medical status and adequate health care process. Suspected of discrimination before, during and after (TBI) accident. Irregular process before discharge process and his medical status with cognitive deficits to understand the situation and reason for discharge, to appeal appropriately. He contends he is currently receiving 100 % service connected disability. Be believes his DD Form 214 should be amended due to his years of good conduct and services until the end. He also has rights with an appropriate discharge that he lost due to his inappropriate discharge process and would like to recover those benefits for him and his family. His discharge should be upgrade because of true and moral issues. The applicant's contentions were noted; 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 this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his discharge was the result of an inequitable discharge process. The applicant's statements alone does not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. Also, evidence in the record shows that on 11 February 2004, the Commanding General of Fort Carson, Colorado, directed that the applicant be processed under administrative separation provisions, Chapter 14-12c(2), misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs, IAW paragraph 1-33, AR 635- 200. Although Medical Evaluation Board findings indicated that the applicant's case be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board, he determined that administrative separation UP Chapter 14- 12c (2) for misconduct was appropriated in the applicant's case. Although the applicant claims he is receiving 100% service connected disability for medical conditions he suffered with while on active duty, this does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. Additionally, on 11 February 2004, the Commanding General of Fort Carson, Colorado, directed that the applicant be processed under administrative separation provisions, Chapter 14-12c(2), misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs, IAW paragraph 1-33, AR 635-200. Although Medical Evaluation Board findings indicated that the applicant's case be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board, he determined that an administrative separation UP Chapter 14-12c(2) for misconduct was appropriated in the applicant's case. 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 9 August 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post- service diagnoses of TBI and OBH). Therefore, 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 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3 e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JFF / 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 AR20180004166 1