1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 September 2018 b. Date Received: 25 September 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, after a successful deployment to Iraq, had bad judgment when the applicant used marijuana to deal with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). At the time of the separation proceedings, the applicant's senior leadership did not give the applicant any alternative ways to correct the wrong doing and continue serving the country. The applicant states, the leadership decided that they were going to use the applicant to set a precedence that marijuana use would not be tolerated. Since discharge, the applicant has learned how to deal with PTSD without the use of marijuana and has continued to support the war-fighter working as an instructor at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. It has been a huge burden knowing that the applicant cannot say that the applicant achieved a fully honorable discharge from the Army service when talking with peers. Recently the applicant has learned from the VA that the applicant is not eligible for GI Bill benefits due to not having a fully honorable discharge. In the current position as a contractor for CACI 1NT, and as a Subject Matter Expert of the Global Rapid Response Information Package (GRRIP), it is very important for the applicant to be able to go back to school and finish a degree in computer sciences and network engineering. Without furthering education, the applicant will be unable to continue to be the best at this job from a knowledge stand point, which could result in not being able to continue to performing duties. The applicant is reminded daily of the huge mistake, when deciding to use an illegal substance to deal with mental health issues. The applicant has had to endure the stigma of a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, when explaining to employers and family members about discharge. Since discharge, the applicant has tried to continue to hold oneself to a higher standard, so that the applicant will never make any more mistakes like so long ago. The applicant has worked various jobs and attended classes to gain the knowledge necessary to start a career doing what the applicant loves. Being with Soldiers everyday somehow makes the applicant feel like he still is a Soldier for the Army. Working for the Army, providing the best products and training in order to help them achieve mission success, is a life goal. If the applicant cannot be a Soldier anymore, then this is the next best thing. The applicant has married and started a family and is not the young immature Soldier any longer. The applicant continues to strive to better oneself in every way and hopes that the Board will understand the situation and believe that the applicant has become better today. 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 Polysubstance Dependence, Adjustment Disorder, Dysthymia and Alcohol Abuse. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with PTSD, MDD, Cannabis Abuse, and Nicotine Dependence. The applicant currently has a 90% service-connected rating; 70% for PTSD. In summary, the applicant had 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 February 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD). 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), and the separation code to JKN. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 28 July 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 July 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He wrongfully used marijuana. His actions were not becoming of a Soldier and did not live up to the Army Values. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 15 July 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 July 2009 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 November 2006 / 3 years, 24 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / GED / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 74D10, Chemical Operations Specialist / 2 years, 8 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (25 October 2007 - 5 December 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ICM-CS, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 10 June 2009, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (27 March, 9, 24 and 30 April 2009); and, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 12 April and 12 May 2009). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $699 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 July 2009, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with a clear thinking process. The applicant was diagnosed with: Poly Substance Abuse. The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, dated 23 January 2018, which reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent disability for PTSD (also claimed as mental health condition). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; VA Rating Decision; three character statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he has obtained employment as a contractor for supporting the Army. 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 states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 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 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 Veterans Administration has granted him a service connected disability for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 1 July 2009, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veteran's 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 contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good performance while serving in the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements did not provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 February 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD). 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), and the separation code to JKN. 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 / 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 AR20180013399 1