1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 October 2018 b. Date Received: 13 November 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board will consider the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. A prior records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 March 2008. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he wants to receive VA benefits. The applicant did not sign a DD Form 214. The applicant completed the full term of the contract. 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 PTSD. The applicant is 70% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Major Depressive Disorder, Cannabis Abuse, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Marijuana Dependence, and Mood Disorder NOS. 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 13 January 2020, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnoses of PTSD and OBH). 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 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 (Civil Conviction) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14, SEC II / JKB / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 12 June 2006 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 April 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; for conviction by a Special Court-Martial for two counts of absence without leave and wrongful use of marijuana. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 April 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 May 2006 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 April 2003 / 3 years / block 12c on the applicant DD Form 214, net active service this period is incorrect, should read 2 years, 10 months, 26 days, as annotated in the Case Report and Directive. The net active service did not a count for his periods of AWOL and confinement time. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 years / Hs Graduate / 89 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 63J10, Quartermaster and Chemical Equipment Repairer / 2 years, 10 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, the dates of service is not in the file. f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Positive urinalysis test coded CO (Competence for Duty/Command Direct/Fitness for duty, dated 28 October 2005, for THC. Charge Sheet, dated 2 December 2005, revealed the applicant was charged AWOL x2 and wrongful use of marijuana. Special Court-Martial, dated 7 February 2006; the applicant was found guilty of the following offenses; AWOL (26 September 2005 to 28 October 2005); and wrongful use of marijuana, between (28 September 2005 and 28 October 2005). He was sentenced to forfeiture of $500 pay for five months and to be confined for five months. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 March 2006, reflects the applicant met the retention standards prescribed in Chapter 3, AR 40-501 and there was no psychiatric disease or defect which warrants disposition through medical channels. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative (or judicial) action deemed appropriate by command. FG Article 15, dated 24 June 2005, for wrongful use of marijuana between (5 April 2005 and 5 May 2005); reduction to PV2 / E-2, forfeiture of $804 pay for two months and extra duty for 45 days. An administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 5 September 2014, for testing positive for THC x2 (5 May 2005, 28 October 2005). His actions and behavior in this matter represent violations of the UCMJ, Article 1112a, abuse of illegal drugs. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL x2 for 45 days, 26 September 2005 to 28 October 2005 for 33 days; returned to unit; AWOL for 12 days, 29 October 2005 to 10 November 2005, apprehended. Confinement Military Authorities for 34 days, 7 February 2006 to 13 March 2006. Applicant also had 60 days of excess leave, 14 April 2006 to 12 June 2006. Total lost time 79 days. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (two pages). 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. 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 did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board will considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant's 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'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. By the misconduct (civil conviction), the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, he wants to receive VA benefits. 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 further contends, he did not sign his DD Form 214. The record of evidence shows that the applicant was unavailable to sigh his DD form 214. The applicant also contends, he completed his full term of his contract. However, the applicant had two periods of AWOL and a period of confinement. This is considered lost time and had to be made up. Therefore, the applicant did not complete his first full term of service. The applicant's service record contains a DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document for Drug Testing) that shows the urinalysis test was coded CO which indicates "Competence for Duty/Command Direct/Fitness for duty." The Limited Use Policy applies to this test basis, per AR 600-85. However, the evidence indicates that the 28 October 2005 drug test was an inspection other (IO) test because it was administered on the Soldier's return from AWOL status as part of unit policy. In view of the aforementioned, it appears the CO code used on the DD Form 2624 was in all likelihood incorrect and should have been coded IO for "Inspection Other" instead of CO for "Competence for Duty." 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. 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): Applicant provided oral argument and statements in support of the contentions provided in written submissions and in support of previously submitted documentary evidence c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 January 2020, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnoses of PTSD and OBH). 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 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 11. 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 AR20180016064 1