1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 January 2019 b. Date Received: 22 January 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change removing "Drug Abuse." The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that he believes the characterization of his discharge is inadequate due to it being from a single isolated incident during his 2.5 years of service. While in service his leaders would characterize him as an outstanding Soldier, with a high caliber of proficiency and moral standing. He was separated from service due to "drug abuse." This stems from an incident during winter block leave 2016/2017 where he unknowingly ingested MDMA while celebrating New Year's Eve. He was of legal drinking age and out having drinks with friends to celebrated the holiday. After returning to post and reporting in for the 100% UA he was informed that he had tested positive for the substance MDMA. Once informed he immediately began the process with CID and SUDC to try and proved his innocence, even going so far himself to question all his companions from the evening in, when one revealed that he had put a dose of MDMA in our group's bottle of Vodka. He informed his leadership and the agents of CID of this. In the course of the investigation he repeatedly fought to maintain his innocence, even going so far as to offer a willing lie detector test through CID to help prove his story. His leadership both at Company and Platoon level both fought to have his case reviewed further and in detail, but the Brigade SMJ refused all request from both himself and leadership to have the case reviewed or a lie detector test administered on the basis of "guilty by association," and that he should not have been at the function if he had suspected there might have been drug use there (he was not aware there would be). In the following six months between the positive UA and discharge he completed mandatory UA screenings weekly and attended all relevant SUCD courses without failure or discrepancy. Leaders from Squad Leader all the way to First Sergeant tried to get his case reviewed to no avail, and when it became clear that his case would not be reviewed, some even went so far as to write letter of recommendation to submit to the Board, in the hopes that his case may be reviewed. During his time in service he became the lowest ranking Tram Leader at PFC with less than 2 years in service, even having other Soldiers above his pay grade below him in billet on his team. As testimony attached from senior leaders and other members of his unit will attest, he was a good Soldier in all around terms, and both them and himself believe the characterization of discharge deserves a review. His goal of this review is in the hopes that he may have the characterizing of his discharge upgrade to reflect the true characterization of his service. He hopes that if his discharge is upgraded he may be able to one day reenlist in the US Army so that he may finish fulfilling the oath of service he swore to his country, the same as his father and his grandfather: honorably. In a records review conducted at on 9 July 2021, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision (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: 26 June 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 February 2015 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 6 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USARCG, 19 December 2014 to 2 February 2015 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and letters of support and recommendation. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends that since leaving service and returning home he has gained full time steady employment and has been attending college courses to become a certified Emergency Medical Technician (which requires regular drug screenings). He has not and did not use illegal narcotics of any type. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides 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), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides 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, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification 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. (2) 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. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), dated 25 September 2019, sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) 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. (6) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. (7) 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. e. 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 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." 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change removing "Drug Abuse." The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c (2), by reason of Misconduct (Drug Abuse), with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Drug Abuse)," and the separation code is "JKK." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The appropriate RE code is 4. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant seeks relief contending that he believes the characterization of his discharge is inadequate due to it being from a single isolated incident during his 2.5 years of service. While in service his leaders would characterize him as an outstanding Soldier, with a high caliber of proficiency and moral standing. He was separated from service due to "drug abuse." This stems from an incident during winter block leave 2016/2017 where he unknowingly ingested MDMA while celebrating New Year's Eve. He was of legal drinking age and out having drinks with friends to celebrated the holiday. After returning to post and reporting in for the 100% UA he was informed that he had tested positive for the substance MDMA. Once informed he immediately began the process with CID and SUDC to try and proved his innocence, even going so far himself to question all his companions from the evening in, when on relieved that he had put a dose of MDMA in our groups bottle of Vodka. He informed his leadership and the agents of CID of this. In the course of the investigation he repeatedly fought to maintain his innocence, even going so far as to offer a willing lie detector test through CID to help prove his story. His leadership both at Company and Platoon level both fought to have his case reviewed further and in detail, but the Brigade SMJ refused all request from both himself and leadership to have the case reviewed or a lie detector test administered on the basis of "guilty by association," and that he should not have been at the function if he had suspected there might have been drug use there (he was not aware there would be). In the following six months between the positive UA and discharge he completed mandatory UA screenings weekly and attended all relevant SUCD courses without failure or discrepancy. Leaders from Squad Leader all the way to First Sergeant tried to get his case reviewed to no avail, and when it became clear that his case would not be reviewed, some even went so far as to write letter of recommendation to submit to the board, in the hopes that his case may be reviewed. During his time in service he became the lowest ranking Tram Leader at PFC with less than 2 years in service, even having other Soldiers above his pay grade below him in billet on his team. As testimony attached from Senior Leaders and other members of his unit will attest, he was a good Soldier in all around terms, and both them and himself believe the characterization of discharge deserves a review. His goal of this review is in the hopes that he may have the characterizing of his discharge upgrade to reflect the true character of his service. He hopes that if his discharge is upgraded he may be able to one day reenlist in the US Army so that he may finish fulfilling the oath of service he swore to his country, the same as his father and his grandfather; honorably. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, a determination on whether these contentions have merit cannot be made because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown. The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 4. An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? (YES) Applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder related to a family member being diagnosed with cancer by the military, which, in the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, could potentially mitigate the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. During the time of the substance use, the applicant held diagnoses of MDMA Use Disorder, Severe and Alcohol Use Disorder, mild. The applicant has not been to the VA and is not service connected. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? (YES) Applicant's Adjustment Disorder, MDMA Use Disorder, Severe and Alcohol Use Disorder, mild all occurred during service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? (NO) Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the possible mitigating BH conditions listed do not mitigate the misconduct which led to separation from the Army, as documentation reflects purposeful use due to family stressors. Furthermore, an Adjustment Disorder does not lead to impaired decision making resulting in drug use. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? (NO) Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant's non-medically mitigated offenses outweighed the applicant's BH diagnosis, since there is evidence in the medical records that there was a second drug use, and the BH conditions do not lead to drug use, whether one time or multiple. Ultimately, the ADRB decided that the applicant's multiple drug uses rendered the military record satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. b. Responses to contentions: (1) The applicant seeks relief contending that he believes the characterization of his discharge is inadequate due to it being from a single isolated incident during his 2.5 years of service. However, a determination on whether this contention has merit cannot be made because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown. The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. (2) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 4. An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. c. The ADRB determined that the applicant's characterization of service was proper and equitable and voted not to change it because the reason for discharge is supported by the documentation available and there were no medical conditions which mitigated the misconduct which led to the applicant's separation from the Army. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, there were no BH diagnoses which mitigated the misconduct and 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge because, despite applying liberal consideration, there were no BH diagnoses which mitigated or outweighed the misconduct and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) Because the characterization and reason were not changed, the SPD/RE codes will not change, as the current codes are consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / 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 AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma NA - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Reentry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20190002736 1