1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 February 2019 b. Date Received: 28 February 2019 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, although being diagnosed with PTSD, the applicant was never treated for the condition. The untreated PTSD led to self-medicating with alcohol and drugs, and subsequently was discharged. Had the applicant received the proper treatment, the applicant would have never lost Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits. The service record will show a decline in behavior from the PTSD. The applicant has since received treatment and no longer self- medicates. 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 Alcohol Abuse and Adjustment Disorder. The applicant is 50% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. 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 14 August 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. post-service diagnosis of PTSD), and a prior period 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 to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. (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: 9 November 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 October 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 24 August 2011, the applicant submitted a valid urine specimen during a unit urinalysis, which tested positive for cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 19 October 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived, 19 October 2011 (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 October 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 August 2007 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 120 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 11 years, 10 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG (21 December 1999 to 22 February 2000) / NA IADT (23 February 2000 to 9 August 2000) / HD ARNG (10 August 2000 to 26 January 2003) / NA MOB (27 January 2003 to 10 January 2005) / HD ARNG (11 January 2005 to 20 December 2005) / HD USAR (21 December 2005 to 7 June 2006) / NA RA (8 June 2006 to 23 August 2007) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (11 September 2006 to 7 December 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; AAM-2; AGCM; ARCAM; NDSM; ICM-2CS; GWOTSM; NCOPDR; ASR; OSR; AFRM-M DEV g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer of Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 14 June 2010, indicates the applicant was reprimanded for driving an automobile while intoxicated on 15 May 2010. General Officer of Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 18 August 2010, indicates the applicant was reprimanded for refusing to take a breath alcohol content test when he was apprehended for driving while intoxicated on 25 July 2010. An Electronic Copy of the DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing), dated 2 September 2011, indicates the specimen collected on 24 August 2011, on an "IR" (Inspection, Random) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for cocaine. FG Article 5, dated 13 October 2011, for wrongfully using cocaine between 18 August 2011 and 24 August 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 and forfeiture of $1,162. Negative counseling statement for having a positive urinalysis results and being recommended for an involuntary separation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 19 February 2019; DD Form 214; ARNG enlistment documents; GOMOR, dated 18 August 2010, and its associated documents; two DA Form 4187, dated 22 May 2002 (promotions); certificate of appreciation; two Records of Emergency Data; Orders, dated 2 December 2004; discharge orders, dated 30 January 2006; RA enlistment documents; NDSM award; ARNG Retirement Points History Statement; DD Form 214 (10 January 2005); Orders (MOS), dated 1 June 2000; SGLI Election and Certificate; three Service School Academic Evaluation Reports; HS Diploma; discharge orders, dated 25 October 2011; Pre-Separation Counseling Checklist; Article 15, dated 13 October 2011; ERB; separation file; AFRM award; Police Record Check, dated 7 May 2006, and response, dated 9 May 2006; AGCM award; DA Form 2-1; Recommendation for Award, dated 25 June 2005; DD Form 214 (9 August 2000); NGB Form 22; Notice of Basic Eligibility, dated 17 January 2003; MOB Orders, dated 25 January 2003; transfer orders, dated 8 September 2005; Montgomery GI Bill Basis Enrollment, dated 13 May 2006; Reenlistment Documents, dated 24 August 2007; Statement of Understanding (The Selected Reserve Montgomery GI Bill, dated 20 December 1999; Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status with Medical Examination and Duty Status, dated 18 June 2005; AAM award; GOMOR, dated 14 June 2010, and its associated documents; order (release from AD), dated 2 December 2004; and discharge orders (ARNG), dated 30 January 2006. 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 alcohol and 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 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's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues and being diagnosed with PTSD while on active duty, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence provided no record of a PTSD diagnosis. Based on further review of an available record that is not readily available, and 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. However, currently there is no record of any behavioral health diagnoses. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., a behavioral health or PTSD diagnoses by a competent medical authority), for the Board's consideration. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow him to use his educational benefits. However, eligibility for veterans' benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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 14 August 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. post-service diagnosis of PTSD), and a prior period 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 to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. 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 / 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 AR20190003389 1