1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 August 2018 b. Date Received: 16 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, the characterization of discharge was misguided and wrongfully founded due to lack of information by the chain of command to the administrative separation board. The applicant refused the GCMCA's offer to reclassify the MOS because the applicant wanted to complete the medical evaluation board. The GCMCA stated there was not enough evidence of PTSD to characterize the service as honorable. The psychiatrist, CPT L. gave the applicant a false and faulty diagnosis of PTSD without the disorder for two combat tours. During the second tour, the applicant saw images of a friend being blown in half. After redeploying at age 26, the applicant also found out about being adopted, which caused a toll on the applicant's identity and purpose as a member of the family who lied to the applicant all throughout life. The applicant went through the struggles alone, including being legally separated from the children and heading for divorce. After discharge, the applicant lost two separate opportunities to serve with overseas contracting companies. The applicant suffered from different medical issues, including receiving 100 percent evaluation for PTSD. 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 Trauma-Related Stress Disorder, Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, PTSD, Insomnia, mTBI, Tobacco Use Disorder, Cannabis Related Disorder, and Alcohol Use Disorder. The applicant is 100% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with PTSD, Other Specified Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorder. 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 24 July 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post- service diagnosis of PTSD), and a prior periods of honorable service. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and change 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 (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200, Paragraph 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 December 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 May 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant wrongfully used marijuana on two separate occasions, between 18 November 2015 and 18 December 2015, and between 29 December 2015 and 29 January 2016. The applicant also disobeyed a lawful order of 1SG A.M.J., and on divers occasions between 4 June 2015 and 4 January 2016, he failed to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed times. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions; however, subsequent to the administrative separation board's findings and recommendations, the chain of command recommended General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 May 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: 24 August 2016, the Board recommended General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 November 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 October 2013 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / GED / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 12B, Combat Engineer / 9 years, 7 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (1 May 2007 to 7 December 2008) / HD RA (8 December 2008 to 30 September 2013) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (5 February 2013 to 25 October 2013), (8 July 2009 to 11 July 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2; AAM; AGCM-2; NDSM; ACM-2CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR; NATO MDL; CAB g. Performance Ratings: Three NCOERs rendered during period of service under current review: 1 July 2013 thru 30 June 2014, Fully Capable 1 July 2014 thru 31 March 2015, Fully Capable 1 April 2015 thru 30 March 2016, Did Not Meet Standards h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum, dated 4 June 2015, rendered by the first sergeant, detailed concerns to the applicant because of being inefficient and derelict in the performance of his duties as a section sergeant. An Electronic Copy of the DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing), dated 4 January 2016, indicates the specimen collected on 18 December 2015, on an "IU" (Inspection, Unit) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for "THC." An Electronic Copy of the DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing), dated 18 February 2016, indicates the specimen collected on 29 January 2016, on an "IR" (Inspection, Random) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for "THC." Negative counseling statement for missing medical appointments. Report of Proceedings by Board of Officers with its summarized transcript of the hearing that convened on 24 August 2016, reports the findings and recommendations. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 12 April 2016, indicates the applicant and examiner noted behavioral health issues. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 15 November 2016, indicates an "AXIS I" diagnoses of a "Trauma-Stressor-Related Disorder, Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood (by history)." The report shows that he had positive screenings for PTSD and mTBI. The applicant was psychologically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. Advisory Opinion, dated 3 April 2019, determined that the applicant's diagnosis of PTSD is a mitigating factor in the misconduct that resulted in his discharge from the military, and in consideration of the medical separation processing for his left ankle impairment, further recommended for the ABCMR to refer the applicant's medical records to IDES (Integrated Disability Evaluation System. Applicant's documentary evidence: VA letter, dated 13 August 2018, shows he received an evaluation of 100 percent service- connected PTSD. Physical Profile, dated 24 March 2016, indicates he was provided a temporary profile for concussion, post traumatic headache, and neck strain. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 14 April 2016, indicates an "AXIS I" diagnoses of an "Adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and he was cleared to participate in any administrative proceedings deemed appropriate by his command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 14 August 2018; VA letter, dated 13 August 2018; two separate set of Oath of Reenlistment and Honorable Discharge certificates (2013 and 2008); two separate file decision memoranda; physical profile, dated 24 March 2016; Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 14 April 2016; ASAP Outpatient Discharge Summary, dated 4 February 2016; two certificates of completion; Specimen Data, dated 18 December 2015; Patient Progress Report, dated 23 June 2016; applicant memorandum, dated 31 August 2016, with applicant-authored statement; birth certificate; certificate of marriage; separation packet documents; DD Form 214; two applicant resume; two email correspondence, dated 31 October 2016, and 13 December 2017 (for possible employment); six NCOERs; Medical Board Worksheet; ERB; two NCO Academy diplomas; two Service School Academic Evaluation Report; 14 certificates of training/course completion; Airborne Course diploma; Permanent Orders; Individual Jump Record; three certificates of achievement; NATO Medal certificate; Permanent Order (CAB); memorandum for driver's badge; and recommendation for award. 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(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 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 "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), Misconduct (Drug Abuse). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKK" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. 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 incident 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 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 discharge was unjust because the characterization of his discharge was misguided and wrongfully founded due to lack of information by his chain of command to the administrative separation board; the GCMCA stated there was not enough evidence of his PTSD to characterize his service as honorable; and his psychiatrist gave a false and faulty diagnosis of PTSD without indicating the disorder was the result of two combat tours. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant's contentions, regarding suffering from several medical issues that included PTSD, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues along with notable service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. 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. 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 and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant contends that issues, such as, finding out he was adopted after redeploying at age 26, and going through the struggles alone that included being legally separated from his children and heading for divorce, 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 current discharge caused him to miss two separate opportunities to serve with overseas contracting companies. Perhaps, an indication that an upgrade would provide him better employment opportunities; however, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 24 July 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of PTSD), and a prior periods of honorable service. 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. 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 AR20190000592 1