1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 February 2019 b. Date Received: 22 March 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, that the discharge is incorrect, because the applicant was an exemplary Soldier, who made one huge mistake during the time in service. The applicant passed all drug tests, except for one that led to discharge. The applicant relied on the Cannabis, as a natural remedy, for a temporary relief to calm anxiety, to help sleep, and to relieve the body pains, exhaustion, and depression. The applicant was afraid to ask for help for depression and anxiety upon redeploying from Iraq. It is also inadequate, because the command did not offer any help when the applicant informed them about suffering from PTSD, and they did not enroll the applicant in ASAP or reclassify, but instead discharged the applicant. The applicant was not provided a second chance as there are Soldiers with sexual harassment, DUIs, and spousal abuses, whom were given second or third chances. The applicant was a model Soldier, who never got in trouble. The applicant has since, never touched Cannabis. The current discharge affected civilian life severely since discharge. The applicant learned from this mistake-as a leader, the applicant failed to ask for help; however, making one huge mistake should not define the future as the applicant is trying to move on in life as a better man and father. The applicant returned to college to pursue a career in firefighting. The applicant has received an EMT degree and national certification. An upgrade would allow the applicant to join the Los Angeles City Fire Department and help out the application process, and make life a little easier for the applicant and family. 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 BH diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder and Nightmare Disorder. The applicant does not currently have a diagnosis of PTSD. The applicant is 90% service-connected from the VA. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 4 October 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, Paragraph 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 9 July 2012 c. Separation Facts: (Note, the applicant's OMPF does not provide a separation file; however, the following were obtained from the applicant's submitted evidence: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 June 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant tested positive for Marijuana (THC), a Schedule I controlled substance on 20 January 2012. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 6 June 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 June 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 September 2009 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31B10, Military Police / 2 years, 9 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (3 August 2011 to 23 November 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; NDSM; ICM-CS; GWOTSM; KDSM; ASR; OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (Note, the applicant's OMPF does not provide a separation file; however, the following were obtained from the applicant's submitted evidence:) An Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing), dated 7 February 2012, indicates the specimen collected on 20 January 2012, on an "IU" (Inspection, Unit) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for "THC." Negative counseling statements for testing positive for THC during a unit urinalysis and preparing him for administrative separation. FG Article 15, dated 17 April 2012, for wrongfully using marijuana on 20 January 2012. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $745 pay per month for two months (suspended), 30 days of extra duty, and an oral reprimand. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: (Note, the applicant's OMPF does not provide a separation file; however, the following were obtained from the applicant's submitted evidence:) Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 March 2012, shows a positive screening for PTSD, but was evaluated and cleared for any administrative processing deemed necessary for his command. Report of Medical History, dated 12 April 2012, indicates the applicant noted behavioral health issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 19 February 2019, with self-authored statement; four character reference/supporting statements; Substance Testing Results, dated 15 February 2019; National Registry of Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) certification letter with test results, dated 8 February 2019; two EMT Certificates, dated 17 October 2018, and 1 February 2019; email showing Firefighter Oral Interview Score, dated 15 November 2018; Recommendation for ARCOM award; and portion of DD Form 214. Additional Evidence: Separation file, and DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 14 March 2019, with self-authored statement (previously attached to DD Form 293). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, since his discharge, he has returned to college to pursue a career in firefighting, and received his EMT national registry certifications. 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 applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's submitted evidence confirms that his 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 serious 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 he was suffering from PTSD and relied on the Cannabis, as a natural remedy, for a temporary relief to calm his anxiety, to help him sleep, and to relieve his body pains, exhaustion, and depression, and that he was afraid to ask for help for his depression and anxiety upon redeploying from Iraq. A careful review of the available record indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues along with 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. The applicant contends his command did not offer him any help when he informed them that he was suffering from PTSD, nor did they enroll him in ASAP or reclassified him. However, AR 635- 200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. Further, AR 600-85, paragraph 3-8 entitled self-referrals, states the applicant could have self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance. The applicant contends that other Soldiers with similar offenses or with sexual harassment, DUI, and spousal abuse offenses, were given chances and allowed to stay in the Army. However, the method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incident of misconduct, and his post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his accomplishments and complete period of service were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re- characterization 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 would allow him to join the City Fire Department and help out with the application process. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character and performance. However, the persons providing the character reference statements were in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. 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 4 October 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 AR20190004896 3