1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 August 2018 b. Date Received: 29 August 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 pertinent part and in effect, received a FG Article 15 for drug abuse due to one positive urinalysis; however, the rest of the military record was of a strong and dedicated Soldier, who was willing to serve the country with integrity and pride. The request for assistance was denied, and instead, the applicant was discharged. During that period, the applicant's father passed away. The applicant received four days of emergency leave to attend the funeral, but was required to return to duty to make a jump to remain jump qualified. After losing the military career, the applicant stopped caring, and started drinking and drugging irresponsibly. After years of self-torment, the applicant woke up one morning having enough and pleaded with God for help. The applicant has since not looked back. The applicant stopped drinking and drugging, and is currently in treatment. The applicant desires to be free and clear of the current discharge. 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 Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and depressed mood and Cocaine Abuse. The applicant is 50% service-connected for Generalized Anxiety Disorder from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Opioid Dependence and Other Stimulant Dependence. In summary, the applicant does not have 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 31 January 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the reason for the applicant's discharge cited in his DD Form 214, at blocks 25, 26, 27, and 28, contained erroneous entries. In view of the erroneous entries, the Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 25, separation authority changed to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, b. block 26, separation code changed to JKQ, c. block 27, reentry code changed to 3, and d. block 28, narrative reason for separation changed to Misconduct (Serious Offense). (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: 8 October 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 August 2009, and 17 September 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant wrongfully used cocaine, a Schedule I controlled substance, on two separate occasions, between 19 July 2009 and 22 July 2009, and 1 November 2008 and 4 November 2008. The applicant failed to report to accountability formations on three separate occasions, at 0630 at Charlie Company Headquarters on 13 May 2009, 3 October 2008, and 11 September 2008. The applicant, on 27 December 2009, without authority, absented himself from his unit, to wit: Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, and remained absent until 5 January 2009. The applicant wrongfully used marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, between 21 October 2008 and 4 November 2008. The applicant failed to report to work call formations on two separate occasions, at 0900 at Charlie Company Headquarters on 11 September 2008, and 3 June 2008. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (Note, the initial notification, undated, recommended Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 2 September 2009, with request for conditional waiver, and subsequent notification, the applicant waived consultation on 17 September 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 September 2009 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 October 2007 / 5 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B1P, Infantryman / 1 year, 11 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR; EIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing), dated 17 November 2008, indicates the specimen collected on 4 November 2008, on an "IR" (Inspection, Random) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for Cocaine and "THC". CG Article 15, dated 18 February 2009, for absenting himself from his unit on 27 December 2008, and remained absent until 5 January 2009, and failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on four separate occasions on 3 October 2008, 11 September 2008 x 2, and 3 June 2008. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended), and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 14 May 2009, vacated the suspended punishment of a reduction to E-2, imposed on 18 February 2009, due to the applicant failing to report to the 0630 accountability formation on 13 May 2009. DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing), dated 29 July 2009, indicates the specimen collected on 22 July 2009, on an "IU" (Inspection, Unit) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for Cocaine. Negative counseling statements for failing to report to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 9 days (AWOL on 27 December 2008 to 4 January 2009) / The applicant returned to his unit. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 22 July 2009, indicates the applicant noted behavioral health issues since February 2009, after his father passed away in February 2009. Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 27 July 2009, reflecting an "AXIS I" diagnosis of an "Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood; Cocaine Abuse," psychiatrically cleared the applicant for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 1 August 2018; DD Form 214; and National Personnel Records Center letter, dated 17 August 2018. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. 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. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 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 the serious incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. The service record further reflects that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, separation authority as AR 635-200, paragraph 14- 12c(2), block 26 separation code as "JKK," block 27, reentry code as "4," and block 28, narrative reason for separation as "Misconduct (Drug Abuse)." Therefore and as approved by the separation authority, the following administrative corrections are warranted: a. block 25, separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c; b. block 26, separation code to JKQ; c. block 27, reentry code to 3, and d. block 28, reason for separation to Misconduct (Serious Offense). 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. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that his complete period of service was or was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant contends the event that caused his discharge from the Army was one drug incident resulting in an Article 15 punishment. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends he is entitled to an upgrade of his discharge because of mitigating circumstances which contributed to his misconduct. Specifically, he claims the passing of his resulted in his discharge. While the applicant may believe his stress at home was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from stress through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. The applicant contends his request for assistance was denied. However, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishments. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. Although the applicant did not directly present any behavioral health issues, a careful review of the available record indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed. 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 record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 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 31 January 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the reason for the applicant's discharge cited in his DD Form 214, at blocks 25, 26, 27, and 28, contained erroneous entries. In view of the erroneous entries, the Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 25, separation authority changed to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, b. block 26, separation code changed to JKQ, c. block 27, reentry code changed to 3, and d. block 28, narrative reason for separation changed to Misconduct (Serious Offense). 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Serious Offense) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKQ / 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 AR20180016409 1