1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 29 October 2018 b. Date Received: 2 November 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, was punished under Article 15 and lost rank in a war zone for possession of a controlled substance while on duty. The applicant states the actions were wrong, but the applicant was trying to self-medicate due to issues at home. While deployed, the applicant became aware the spouse was involved in a relationship with a Staff Sergeant. The applicant came home on R&R and found a recording of the wife involved in intercourse with another Soldier and found out she was involved in drugs herself and left evidence all over their base housing. The applicant requested help from the First Sergeant and unit commander to no avail. The applicant requested to be changed to a different unit or duty station, but was denied on multiple accounts. Only after the base security caught the wife and another Soldier coming through the gates in possession of drugs that the applicant was finally able to get a divorce from her. The applicant states, the wife was subsequently banned from all military installations though this did not help the applicant's circumstances and left the applicant in a bad environment. The applicant continued to press for a change of duty station and was consistently denied. The applicant's life was in shambles and was trying to put everything back in order. When the applicant redeployed, the applicant came home to find the wife had a dog that damaged their base housing and numerous other damages. Every time the applicant would try and talk about everything with the wife, she would call the base police and make false accusations of threats or harm. It became so frequent she was eventually arrested. The applicant began to drink to sooth the pain, which did not help one's defense before the unit. Since discharge, the applicant has been professionally employed as an Insurance Fraud Underwriter for almost 10 years. The applicant has had no drug charges and does not use any drugs. The applicant believes the circumstances around the marriage became too great to deal with and contributed to ruining a promising military career. The applicant was the top third student of Advanced Individual Training (AIT) and received many acknowledgments from commanders on tour for dedication to one's MOS and unit as a whole. The applicant entered the military with a 115 GT score and could have excelled in any position. The applicant never collected any money or filled for disability because the applicant believes in earning what the applicant receives, but the current discharge has created a ceiling in professional growth and limited the applicant's potential to provide for the children. The applicant served the country, went in to a war zone, assisted in weapons training and running gun ranges. On convoys, the applicant always drove the 5-Ton with all the precious cargo because the applicant was deemed the most proficient driver. The applicant's hope is that the applicant has provided sufficient information to justify the request and is willing to provide any other information that may be needed and pledges that what the applicant wrote is as an absolute truth before God. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 18 March 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200 / Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 18 July 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 June 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: Under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, the applicant was informed of the following reasons: He wrongfully possessed hashish while deployed, and he drove his vehicle while intoxicated. Also, he had continued to drive his vehicle on post while his on post driving privileges were suspended. The applicant was involved in a physical altercation with his wife. He assaulted two military police when they attempted to remove him from his quarters. The behavior was totally unacceptable and showed a serious lack of good order and discipline (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 June 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 3 July 2007, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14- 12c, Commission of a Serious Offense. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 July 2005 / 3 years, 17 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / GED / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 2 years, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (10 February 2006 - 27 January 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ACM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 1 June 2006, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Wrongful use of Controlled Substances (On Post). Military Police Report, dated 13 July 2006, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Spouse Abuse - Civilian Female Victim (On Post); and, Assault Article 128, UCMJ (On Post). Military Police Report, dated 19 April 2007, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Disobey - A Lawful Order of Commander Officer (On Post). Military Police Report, dated 6 May 2007, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Disobey - A Lawful Order of Commander Officer (On Post). Military Police Report, dated 9 May 2007, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Simple Assault on Military and Civilian Law Enforcement (On Post); Resisting Apprehension (On Post); Harassing Communication (On Post); Drunk and Disorderly Conduct (On Post); Drunk on Duty (On Post); and, Verbal Domestic (On Post). Military Police Report, dated 27 May 2007, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Drunken Driving (On Post); and, Verbal Domestic (On Post). Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 May 2007, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Occupational Problem, Partner Relational Problem. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has been professionally employed as an Insurance Fraud Underwriter for almost 10 years; and, has had no drug charges or uses drugs. 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(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. 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 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 marred the quality of his service. 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 that he was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends his life was in shambles and he used a controlled substance to cope. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service Occupational Problem, Partner Relational Problem; 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 24 May 2007, 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 he requested to be transferred to another unit on multiple occasions. However, 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant contends his unit did not help him with his issues. 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 punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. The applicant contends that he had good service which included a combat tour. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. 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 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 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 18 March 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change 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 AR20180016863 3