1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 April 2018 b. Date Received: 24 April 2018 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The counsel on behalf of the applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, based on propriety, the applicant's medical and mental health evaluations were contrary to law and procedures of AR 40-501, paragraph 8-24(a), USAMEDCOM Guidance, and AHLTA documentation requirements. His commander's behavior was arbitrary and capricious, when prior to post-deployment medical debriefings, "he harassed and pressured his Soldiers not to disclose vital information to healthcare professionals during mental health screenings." Not disclosing what occurred in Afghanistan, made it difficult for him "to speak or even reflect mindfully ... the shock he was feeling as a result of [his] combat experience." Five areas of equity concerns applicable to current standards and understanding of PTSD presents that, highly and likely, the applicant's PTSD would have been properly diagnosed sooner. Pursuant to Hagel and Kurta memoranda, he is entitled to an upgrade because he was experiencing PTSD symptoms which excuses and mitigates his discharge; in that his PTSD outweighs the misconduct that led to his discharge. The quality of his service would also be better reflected by an honorable discharge. (The counsel detailed the applicant's assignments, performance, and achievements, including volunteering to deploy and his experience during his constant exposure to combat environment.) While the applicant never suffered from a mental health condition prior to his deployment, it was during the period of his leave following his redeployment and by the time he returned to his unit from the leave, he had developed a dependency on alcohol due to using it to cope with his PTSD symptoms. His binge drinking and blacking out led to being late and missing three formations in May 2012. In July 2012, during his two-week leave, he consumed a cocktail that had been intentionally dosed with MDMA, which led to his positive urinalysis on 23 July 2012. Subsequent medical evaluations did not mention his reported depression, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and difficulty concentrating, all symptoms of PTSD. Instead of being identified and offered mental health treatment, he was punished and discharged for his lateness and positive drug test. There were no monthly counseling to identity and address his issues. He was unable to seek help, and he was never referred to ASAP, nor screened for PTSD prior to his discharge. (The counsel detailed the events and circumstances surrounding the applicant's subsequent admission to a recovery center, where he completed his rehabilitation treatment for alcohol abuse, and becoming a Veterans Yoga Project (VYP) ambassador and volunteering his service as various events.) After becoming a VYP ambassador, and upon an employment opportunity with VYP, he found his current discharge was an obstacle-despite, he continued with finding meaningful employment, becoming a firefighter, and being recognized and receiving compliments for his work and humor. In September 2016, VA granted him a 70 percent evaluation for his PTSD; wherein, he clearly suffers from his PTSD with suicidal ideation. He is currently doing everything in his power to manage the symptoms of his illness and live a productive life; however, his discharge impedes his path of obtaining employment and preventing him from accessing resources for tuition. Granting his request would allow him to accomplish his dreams of training and becoming an EMT and a paramedic, and work full-time as a firefighter. 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) there was a nexus between a behavioral health or medical condition and the misconduct, which led to the applicant's separation from the Army. The Applicant's post-service diagnosis of PTSD and mental status at the time of the misconduct mitigate the offenses of MDMA use and FTR. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 September 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post- service diagnosis of service-connected PTSD), and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to 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: 20 September 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 August 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between 10 July 2012 and 16 July 2012, he wrongfully used methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). On divers occasions, on 24 May 2012 and 19 July 2012, he failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 August 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 February 2009 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 105 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 94F1P, Computer/Detection Systems Repairer / 3 years, 7 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (27 May 2011 to 28 February 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; AAM; AGCM; NDSM; ACM-2CS; GOWTSM; ASR; OSR; NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 8 August 2012, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on several occasions, on 24 May 2012, and 19 July 2012, and wrongfully using methylenedioxymethamphetamine between 10 July 2012 and 16 July 2012. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $745 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant's documentary evidence: Report of Medical History, dated 13 August 2012, indicates the applicant and examiner noted behavioral health issues. VA Initial PTSD Examination/Disability Benefits Questionaire indicate the applicant's diagnosis of PTSD. VA Rating Decision, dated 22 September 2016, the applicant received an evaluation of 70 percent disability for service-connected PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 12 April 2018, with a cover letter and attorney-authored brief; DD Form 214; applicant's self- authored statement; MOS graduate certificate with student report; two Orders for parachutist badge; airborne course diploma with jump record; promotion certificate with two DA Forms 4187; two counseling statements; AAM certificate with recommendation for award; ARCOM certificate with recommendation for award; NATO Medal certificate; combat lifesaver certificate; Reports of Medical Examination and History, dated in November 2008, with enlistment medical records; Reports of Medical History and Examination, dated in August 2009; health records, dated 14 August 2012; separation file; Reports of Medical History and Examination, dated 13 and 15 August 2012, with lab inquiry/results; Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 14 August 2012; character reference/supporting statement; medical records, dated in November and December 2013; Recovery Center letter, dated 9 December 2014; health records, dated 9 December 2014; Checklist for Hidden Anger; character reference and supporting letter, dated 2 March 2016; an additional character reference/supporting statement; VA Rating Decision, dated 22 September 2016; VA Review of PTSD Disability Benefits Questionaire and Progress Note, dated 9 February 2016; and certificate of complete a "6-Day Veteran's High Sierra Alpine Back pack." 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The counsel on behalf of the applicant states, in effect, the applicant completed his rehabilitation treatment for alcohol abuse, became a Veterans Yoga Project (VYP) ambassador, volunteers his service in various events, and worked as a firefighter. 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 narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant's available record of service, and 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 that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. 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 discharge was unjust because his commander's behavior was arbitrary and capricious, when he harassed and pressured his Soldiers not to disclose vital information to healthcare professionals during post-deployment mental health screenings. 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. The applicant's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues, and the subsequent diagnosis of PTSD, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues along with notable service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance and character. 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. The applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment and a desire to be able to train and become an EMT and a paramedic, per through the use of educational benefits. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, eligibility for veterans' 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 applicant requests to change the reason for his separation; 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 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 7 September 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of service-connected PTSD), and post- service accomplishments. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to 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 AR20180009976 4