1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 July 2018 b. Date Received: 16 July 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 being given a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions) discharge for a marijuana violation is, in the applicant's option, a reflection of both personal apathy, as well as a reflection of the Army's need to downsize it's NCO rank in 2012. The applicant is not claiming that discharging a Soldier who had violated a rule, as well as a law, is unfair, but is merely putting forward that the needs of the Army's change, and at the time of discharge the Army was endeavoring to thin its ranks. If the applicant failed a urinalysis for marijuana at another point in time, the punishment may not have been a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, but perhaps a drop in rank and pay-grade. The applicant contends that since being discharged from the United States Army Reserve, the applicant has had major personal growth, stopped smoking marijuana, and has made a concerted effort to remain in each new job for a minimum of two years. The applicant has had major professional growth, and today, is proud to say that the applicant works for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a death investigator for the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. The job is intellectually and emotionally stressful, but the applicant works tirelessly for the people of that state. The applicant is one of only fifteen people in Massachusetts (a state of 7.5 million people), who is certified in this role. The applicant works closely with state and local police detectives on homicide investigations, and is trusted by the Commonwealth to speak with families who have lost a loved-one in shocking circumstances; sometimes even making notification of death to the families. The applicant contends that the current characterization of service is really hurtful; the applicant is currently on the civil service list for both the police department and the fire department in the city, and believes it is very unlikely to attain either position with a negative discharge. The applicant is also hoping to affiliate with the Navy Reserve and become a Navy Corpsman. The applicant desperately misses wearing a uniform and serving the country and it is the applicant's wish to serve again. The applicant was wrong in what occurred, and believes the applicant did deserve punishment; however, this discharge has followed the applicant throughout life and career and feels that the debt to the Army has been paid, and the lesson harshly learned. The applicant now begs for this fair-minded body of redress to see that the applicant is an upstanding citizen who wishes to continue to serve in a public safety capacity. It is the applicant's greatest desire for it to be known that the applicant had a very unique and desirable experience in Emergency Medicine and disaster response, and that allowing the applicant back into the military, or state level civil service, would be a benefit not only to the applicant, but also to the American people. The applicant is profoundly grateful for the opportunity to address this mistake that was made. 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 Insomnia and Anxiety Disorder NOS. VA records only contain DOD content. In summary, the applicant has a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 April 2019, 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. in-service diagnosis of OBH), a prior period of honorable service, 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 the separation authority to AR 135-178, paragraph 11-1a and the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Disciplinary Infractions). (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Abuse of Illegal Drugs) / AR 135-178, Paragraph 12-1d / NA / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 14 December 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 August 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: testing positive for THC on 8 June 2012 (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: The separation file contains an undated and unsigned election of rights memorandum. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 November 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 November 2011 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 31 years / 14 years / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 68W20, Health Care Specialist / 7 years, 3 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 2 September 2003 to 7 June 2006 / NA OAD, 8 June 2006 to 22 October 2007 / HD USAR, 23 October 2007 to 20 November 2011 / NA (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (27 September 2006 to 22 September 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM, OSR, AFRM-M Device g. Performance Ratings: None for the period of service under review h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document-Drug Testing), dated 29 June 2012, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 64 during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 8 June 2012. Counseling statement for testing positive for illegal drugs and initiation of separation action. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; DD Form 214 from a prior period of service; retirement point's summary point's inquiry, and discharge order. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends that since her discharge she has had major professional growth, and today she is proud to say that she works for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a death investigator for the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the United States Army Reserve. Chapter 12 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, and convictions by civil authorities. 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's available 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 Reserve's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army Reserve, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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 noncommissioned officer, 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 her 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 she should have been retained in the Reserve. The applicant contends, that being given a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions) discharge for a marijuana violation is, in her option, a reflection of both her own personal apathy, as well as a reflection of the Army's need to downsize it's NCO rank in 2012. She contends that she is not claiming that discharging a Soldier who had violated a rule, as well as a law, is unfair; she is merely putting forward that the needs of the Army's change, and at the time of her discharge the Army was endeavoring to thin its ranks. She believes that had she failed a urinalysis for marijuana at another point in time, her punishment may not have been a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, but perhaps a drop in rank and pay- grade. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, the applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. It should be noted; by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct. It appears the applicant's generally good record of service was the basis for her receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. She contends that since being discharged from the United States Army Reserve, she has had major personal growth; she stopped smoking marijuana, and has made a concerted effort to remain in each new job for a minimum of two years. She has had major professional growth, and today she is proud to say that she works for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a death investigator for the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. Her job is intellectually and emotionally stressful, and she works tirelessly for the people of that state. She is one of only fifteen people in Massachusetts (a state of 7.5 million people), who is certified in her role. She works closely with state and local police detectives on homicide investigations, and is trusted by the Commonwealth to speak with families who have lost a loved-one in shocking circumstances, sometimes even making notification of death to the families herself. The applicant's post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and the applicant is to be commended on her accomplishments. The applicant also contends that her current characterization of service is really hurting her; she is currently on the civil service list for both the police department and the fire department in her city, and she believes she is very unlikely to attain either position with a negative discharge. She is also hoping to affiliate with the Navy Reserve and become a Navy Corpsman; she desperately miss wearing a uniform and serving her country and it is her wish to serve again. She contends she was wrong in what she did, and she believes she did deserve punishment; however, this discharge has followed her throughout her life and career and she feels that her debt to the Army has been paid, and her lesson harshly learned. She now begs for this fair- minded body of redress to see that she is an upstanding citizen who wishes to continue to serve in a public safety capacity. It is her greatest desire for it to be known that she has a very unique and desirable experience in Emergency Medicine and disaster response, and that allowing her back into the military, or state level civil service, would be a benefit not only to her, but also to the American people. She is profoundly grateful for the opportunity to address this mistake that she made. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Also, if reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers if appropriate. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): None b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 April 2019, 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. in-service diagnosis of OBH), a prior period of honorable service, 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 135-178, paragraph 11-1a and the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Disciplinary Infractions). 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New Separation Order: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Disciplinary Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 135-178, paragraph 11-1a e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change / 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 AR20180010048 4