1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 October 2017 b. Date Received: 26 February 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, first began experiencing auditory hallucinations after Joint Readiness Training Center in June 2011. The applicant started using spice to cope with these symptoms. The applicant did not receive any treatment for the hallucinations. The applicant attempted to manage the symptoms by using marijuana, which was the reason for discharge. The applicant's mental health needs were not adequately addressed by Military Health Providers. The discharge should have been honorable and general discharge was inequitable. 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 Unspecified Drug Dependence and Cannabis Dependence. The applicant is 100% service-connected for Paranoid Schizophrenia from the VA. In summary, the applicant has 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 29 April 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of OBHI). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Drug Rehabilitation Failure / AR 635- 200 / Chapter 9 / JPC / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 11 December 2014 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 November 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; in that he was an Army Substance Abuse Program Failure on 31 October 2014. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 November 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 March 2013 / 3 years / 1 month extension, 5 March 2014 b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 years / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 4 years, 4 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 9 August 2010 to 13 March 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan, 1 May 2010 to 2 May 2011 f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Positive urinalysis test coded IR (Inspection Random), dated 21 August 2014, for THC. FG Article 15 dated, 16 October 2014, for wrongful use of marijuana between (21 July 2014 and 4 September 2014); reduction to PV2 / E-2, forfeiture of $858 pay for two months (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Of note, an Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment Form, indicates the applicant self-referred to ASAP. However, the ASAP failure memorandum, dated 31 October 2014, relates he was referred by his commander to the ASAP for evaluation on 28 October 2014. He was a biochemical referral on 14 October 2014, for THC. However, the applicant was not enrolled a second time. Therefore it appears the ASAP enrollment form was in error. If this was in fact a harmless error, then the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the error on file in this case. The evidence in the record did not create a substantial doubt that the discharge would have been any different if the error had not been made. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 8 October 2014, relates the he had an Axis I diagnosis of insomnia. He was screened for PTSD and TBI, both screens were negative. From a behavioral health perspective, the service member meets the medical fitness standards for retention per AR 40-501, 3-31 to 3-37 as there was no indication of a boardable behavioral health disorder at this time. He was cleared from a behavioral health perspective for administrative separation in accordance with AR 635-200. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); request for administrative separation packet; unit commander's notification memorandum; and Summary of Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Rehabilitation Failure. 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 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. Army policy states that an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized depending on the applicant's overall record of service. However, an honorable discharge is required if limited use information is used in the discharge process. 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 the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant was enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) and was aware of the consequences of any action which would demonstrate any inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program. As a result of the applicant's actions and after consultation with the drug and alcohol abuse counselor, the command declared the Soldier a rehabilitation failure. The evidence of record establishes the fact the applicant was properly counseled and afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome his problems. The applicant seeks relief contending, he first began experiencing auditory hallucinations after Joint Readiness Training Center in June 2011; he did not receive any treatment for his hallucinations; and his mental health needs were not adequately addressed by Military Health Providers. The service record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. The applicant further contends, he started using spice to cope with these symptoms; and he attempted to manage his symptoms by using marijuana, which was the reason for his discharge. 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 also contends, his discharge should have been honorable and his general discharge was inequitable. The applicant, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, 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. Of note, an Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment Form, indicates the applicant self-referred to ASAP. However, the ASAP failure memorandum, dated 31 October 2014, relates he was referred by his commander to the ASAP for evaluation on 28 October 2014. He was a biochemical referral on 14 October 2014, for THC. However, the applicant was not enrolled .a second time. Therefore it appears the ASAP enrollment form was in error. If this was in fact a harmless error, then the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the error on file in this case. The evidence in the record did not create a substantial doubt that the discharge would have been any different if the error had not been made. 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 29 April 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of OBHI). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20180004783 1