1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 August 2018 b. Date Received: 15 October 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, has suffered from PTSD since returning from Iraq. The applicant would like an upgrade to access VA medical and mental health. 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 no active duty records due to the period of service. The VA has noted the applicant has been homeless. There is insufficient evidence to determine if the applicant has PTSD. In summary, due to insufficient evidence, no statement regarding medical mitigating can be made at this time, In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 August 2019, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service, to include combat service, homelessness, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. 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: Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 11 June 2004 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 April 2004 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he committed a violation of Articles 86, failure to report, 91, disrespect toward a NCO, 107 (2), making false official statements, 108, damage to government property, 112a (4), wrongful use of a controlled substance by wrongfully using marijuana (3) and cocaine, and 121, larceny of AAFES property. (3) Recommended Characterization: The applicant's chain of command recommended an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 7 April 2004 and 24 May 2004 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 7 April 2004, the applicant voluntarily waive consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions). On 29 April 2004, the separation approving authority denied the applicant's conditional waiver and referred the case to an administrative separation board. On 24 May 2004, the applicant voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, contingent on receiving a characterization of service no less than an under other than honorable conditions discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 June 2004 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 October 2002 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 years / HS Graduate / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 63B10, Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic / 2 years, 10 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 19 July 2001 to 2 January 2002 / NA IADT, 3 January 2002 to 24 May 2002 / UNC USAR, 25 May 2002 to 7 October 2002 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / 1 September 2002 to 26 August 2003 f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 18 February 2003, for without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (11 January 2003); reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $268 pay, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. FG Article 15, dated 12 March 2003, for wrongful use of marijuana (6 January 2003 to 7 February 2003); forfeiture of $575 pay for two months and extra duty for 45 days. Two positive urinalysis tests coded PO (Probable Cause), dated 18 November 2003 and 19 November 2003, for cocaine and THC. Military Police Report dated, 19 November 2003, revealed the applicant was under investigation for deposit account fraud (felony), off Military Police Report dated, 16 December 2003, shows the applicant was under investigation for a traffic accident, improper backing, no insurance, on post. Positive urinalysis test coded IU (Inspection Unit), dated 9 January 2004. Military Police Report dated, 10 January 2004, relates the applicant was under investigation for larceny of AAFES property and conspiracy, on post. Military Police Report dated, 4 February 2004, indicates the applicant was under investigation for wrongful possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, wrongful possession of cocaine, wrongful possession of marijuana x3 and wrongful possession of drug paraphernalia, on post. FG Article 15, dated 24 March 2004, for being disrespectful in language toward SGT E.S., a noncommissioned officer, who was in the execution of his office, by saying to him, "f you all I don't care," or words to that effect (29 December 2003); with intent to deceive alter an official document, his military identification card (12 December 2003); with deceived make to SGT E.S., an official statement, "I didn't take the license plate and I don't know anything about it," or words to that effect, which statement was totally false, and was then known by him to be so false (6 January 2004); wrongfully use cocaine between 916 November 2003 and 19 November 2003); wrongfully use marijuana x2 between (20 October 2003 and 19 November 2003 and 8 December 2003 and 9 January 2004); reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $597 pay for two months (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Military Police Report dated, 25 February 2005, relates the applicant was under investigation for wrongfully damaging government property, on post. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 February 2004, relates the applicant's mental status was within normal limits. There was no evidence of significant treatable psychiatric illness or life-threatening ideation. He was responsible for his action. He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. He met the medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501. There is no evidence of treatable psychiatric disorder which warrants disposition through medical channels or Medical Evaluation Board. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the Commander. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 and a 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. 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 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. 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 under other than honorable conditions to honorable. The applicant's record of service and the issues 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. 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 or a general 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, he has suffered from PTSD since returning from Iraq. The service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Additionally, a Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 February 2004, relates the applicant's mental status was within normal limits. He met the medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501. There is no evidence of treatable psychiatric disorder which warrants disposition through medical channels or Medical Evaluation Board. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the Commander. The applicant further contends, he would like an upgrade to access VA medical and mental health. 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 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 August 2019, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service, to include combat service, homelessness, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. 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: General Under Honorable Conditions 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 AR20180014644 4