1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 April 2019 b. Date Received: 15 April 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, the discharge was improper and unjust because it was the result of an untreated PTSD. The applicant grew up with a single mother. The applicant enlisted for stability, security, and discipline. Fort Polk, Louisiana was the first permanent duty station. The applicant's readiness and enthusiasm for new opportunities caused the applicant to make a bad judgment after spending first weekend at Fort Polk with the Soldiers the applicant met. (The applicant details the events and circumstances surrounding the incident, Spice being found in a purse, the first weekend at the new duty station that led to the first Article 15. The incident was the result of someone in the group of Soldiers the applicant was with that weekend, placing it in the purse and subsequently being found during a search of the vehicle they were in when they returned to Fort Polk.) The applicant deployed to Afghanistan after being in the military for less than five months. The 10 months in Afghanistan were very difficult. In Afghanistan, the applicant held about three jobs and was always accountable. Although continuing to prove worth, upon returning from Afghanistan, the applicant's reputation for the previous transgression followed. The applicant never expected the depression from overseas to become a problem as the applicant found a support system was nonexistent. The depression deepened and the applicant began drinking heavily. The leadership noticed, but no one intervened or cared enough to get the applicant any help. The lack of social interaction at Fort Polk, caused the applicant to spiral out of control. The applicant found marijuana being popular and everyone's choice of drug to relieve stress. The applicant tried it and paid the ultimate price for it. The applicant was separated from the military. The applicant had not received any help for depression until after separation proceedings were initiated. The applicant's short-lived experience in the military has humbled the applicant and taught the applicant a lot. The applicant regrets the choices that were made. Since discharge, the applicant graduated from an intensive personal and professional development program known as "Year Up," as the chairman of the class. The applicant started a family and obtained an accounting diploma. The applicant is pursuing an accounting degree and starting a business. The applicant maintains a clean record and has remained drug free since discharge. The applicant is still battling depression and PTSD. The applicant is ready to put the past behind and focus on what is important, such as being a model citizen of the community and building a legacy that the children can be proud of. The applicant found the current discharge disqualified the applicant for the college the applicant paid for in the military and disqualifies the applicant from taking advantage of the GI Bill. The applicant no longer wants the mistake one made at 21, due to depression affect future goals. The applicant's affiliation with the Army is a constant reminder, when applying for new positions and pursuing new endeavors. Although the applicant paid for the sins, they have not been forgiven because the applicant will always have to explain the reasoning behind the current discharge. 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 Dependence and Anxiety Disorder NOS. The applicant is 50% service-connected for Anxiety Disorder 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 1 April 2020, 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: 12 March 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 January 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: For wrongfully possessing Spice, and wrongfully using and possessing Marijuana, a Schedule II controlled substance. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 February 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 February 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 April 2010 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92G10, Food Service Operations Specialist / 1 year, 10 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (29 November 2010 to 20 October 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; ACM-2CS; GWOTSM; ASR-2; NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An Electronic Copy of the DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing), dated 12 December 2011, indicates the specimen collected on 2 December 2011, on an "IU" (Inspection, Unit) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for "THC." Counseling statements for being recommended for a FG Article 15 and an involuntary separation; CG Article 15, dated 18 November 2010, for failing to obey a lawful general order, by possessing Spice on 2 October 2010. The punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty and an oral reprimand. FG Article 15, dated 13 December 2011, for failing to obey a lawful general order, by possessing Spice on 21 November 2011, and wrongfully possessing marijuana on 21 November 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction of E-1, forfeiture of $700 pay per month for two months (one month of forfeiture, $700, suspended), 45 days of extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 February 2011, providing no diagnosis, psychologically cleared the applicant for any administrative action deemed appropriate by her command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 9 February 2012, indicates the applicant and examiner noted behavioral health issues and being seen by behavioral health. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 8 April 2019, with self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, that since her discharge, she graduated from an intensive personal and professional development program known as "Year Up," as the chairman of her class; she started a family and obtained her accounting diploma; and she is pursuing an accounting degree and starting a business. 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 her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of her 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 her service that ultimately caused her 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 she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant's contentions that her discharge was the result of her undiagnosed and untreated PTSD, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to her misconduct. However, 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 her discharge was the result of any medical condition relating to service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to her 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 her service, and her post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that her complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of her characterization of service. The applicant contends that as her depression worsened, she spiraled out of control with her drinking and drug issues, and although her leadership noticed, they did nothing to intervene or cared enough to get her any help. However, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting herself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. Further, AR 600-85, paragraph 7-10 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 an upgrade would allow her with new positions and pursuing new endeavors, and to have the benefits of the GI Bill. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, eligibility for veteran's 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 1 April 2020, 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 AR20190005281 1