1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 December 2018 b. Date Received: 24 December 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 discharged for a failed drug test for amphetamines. The amphetamines were Adderall that was an old prescription from a civilian doctor. The applicant had moderate PTSD at the end of a tour in Afghanistan and had severe insomnia. The applicant was not being treated or given any help as the medical records reflect. The applicant used Adderall to stay awake on duty and to guard the post in a theater of war. The applicant took no illicit drugs and had a legal prescription. The applicant contends that due to the fact that the US Army did not issue the medication, the applicant was found in violation of the anti-drug policy. The treatment the applicant received in Afghanistan was unacceptable, was brushed off, and was told to suck it up. The applicant only started receiving treatment and taken seriously upon returning to Germany from post-deployment leave. By that time it was too late. The applicant was also told that the applicant had never served by the VA upon separation due to a DD Form 214 error and was not approved until two years after separation. The applicant served the country honorably at a time of war. The applicant held a post with one's life, did not fall victim to PTSD on duty and risk the lives of brother s and sisters in arms. The applicant took no illegal drugs, only a medication of a doctor's order. Having a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for drug abuse taints the applicant's character and does not accurately describe the service or character. 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, Alcohol Abuse, Polysubstance Abuse, Personality Disorder, Antisocial and Borderline traits. The applicant is not currently service-connected through the VA. The applicant does not currently have a PTSD diagnosis. 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 11 September 2019, 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 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 June 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for testing positive for Dextro-amphetamines during a urinalysis on 12 December 2011; Using and distributing synthetic cannabis on March 2012; Communicating a threat to kill CPT C.M., and rape PFC O. M., on Facebook, lied under oath regarding the use of synthetic cannabis by PFC A.J., on 26 March 2012; and Communicating a threat to assault SGT M. A., and assaulting CPL N.T., on 31 March 2012 (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 14 June 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 June 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 October 2010 / 5 years, 4 months b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11C10, Indirect Fire Infantryman / 1 year, 9 months, 1 month d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (27 April 2011 to 9 December 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, MUC, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 11 January 2012, reflects the applicant tested positive for DAMP 341 during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing conducted on 12 December 2011. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment, dated 27 February 2012, shows the applicant was command referred for use of methamphetamines. CID Report dated 8 June 2012, which shows the applicant was the subject of investigation for communicating a threat and failure to obey lawful order. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 20 March 2012, shows that the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant had a history of being deployed to a place of imminent danger. He denied any symptoms of combat related PTSD and mTBI. The applicant was not deemed a safety risk at the time and was returned to duty with his escort. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. Counseling statement for act of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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. 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 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. Furthermore, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, the applicant compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. 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 diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge. 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 seeks relief contending that he served his country honorably at a time of war when he was called. He held his post with his life, did not fall victim to PTSD on duty and risk the lives of his brother s and sisters in arms. He took no illegal drugs, only a medication of a doctor's order. Having a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for drug abuse taints his character and does not accurately describe his service or character. 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 and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishment. The applicant contends that he was discharge for amphetamines that were an old prescription from his civilian doctor. He contends he had moderate PTSD at the end of his tour in Afghanistan and had severe insomnia. He was not being treated or given any help as his medical records reflect. He used Adderall to stay awake on duty and to guard his post in a theater of war. He took no illicit drugs and had a legal prescription. He contends that due to the fact that the US Army did not issue him the medication he was found in violation of the anti-drug policy. The treatment he received in Afghanistan was unacceptable and he was brushed off and told to suck it up. He only started receiving treatment and taken seriously once he returned to Germany from post-deployment leave. By that time it was too late. He was also told that he had never served by the VA upon separation due to a DD Form 214 error and was not approved until two years after separation. The applicant contends his discharge was the result of him having used amphetamines that were from an old prescription of his was noted. However, evidence in the record indicates the applicant not only used the drugs for himself, he was charged with distributing synthetic cannabis; communicating a threat to kill CPT C.M., raping PFC O. M., on Facebook, lied under oath regarding the use of synthetic cannabis by PFC A.J., communicated a threat to assault SGT M. A., and assaulted CPL N.T. The applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. Also, although the applicant claims he had moderated PTSD at the end of his tour in Afghanistan and had severe insomnia, the service record contains no evidence of Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 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 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 11 September 2019, 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 AR20190003100 1