1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 March 2019 b. Date Received: 11 March 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he received a debilitating injury and was forced to work with that injury for more than a year. The applicant contends he receives disability compensation for that injury at 80 percent. The applicant contends he self-medicated with marijuana to get discharged. In a records review conducted on 6 August 2021, and by a 3-2 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, Paragraph 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 12 April 2012 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 March 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason for the discharge; The applicant failed to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on divers' occasions between (16 December 2011 and 3 February 2012); The applicant failed to obey a lawful general regulation by wrongfully possessing drug paraphernalia and by wrongfully possessing synthetic cannabinoids (2 February 2012); The applicant failed to obey a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully possessing live ammunition in the barracks and by failing to store his privately owned firearm in the unit arms room (3 February 2012); and The applicant wrongfully used synthetic cannabinoids and he also wrongfully used marijuana between (4 January 2012 and on or about 3 February 2012). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 March 2012, applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 April 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 November 2008 / 4 years, 24 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 3 years, 4 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan, 30 January 2010 to 30 January 2011 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, CAB, NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Toxicological Examination, dated 2 February 2012, shows that the applicant's urine was screened for synthetic cannabinoids using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). The following compounds were detected: JWH-018 N-COOH (JWH-018 N-pentatonic acid) was confim1ed in the urine by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). CID Report of Investigation, dated 9 February 2012, revealed the applicant was under investigation for failing to obey a general order. FG Article 15, dated 13 March 2012, for without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x5 (3 February 2012, 2 February 2012, 1 February 2012, 25 January 2012 and 16 December 2011); violated a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully possessing drug paraphernalia between (2 February 2012 and 3 February 2012); violated a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully possessing by wrongfully possessing synthetic cannabinoid between (2 February 2012 and 3 February 2012);violated a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully possessing a knife having a blade in excess of three inches (3 February 2012); violated a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully possessing live ammunition in the barracks (3 February 2012); violated a lawful general regulation, by failing to store his privately owned firearm in the unit arms room (3 February 2012); reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $745 pay for two months, extra duty for 45 days and restriction for 60 days. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct; and being notified of pending separation action. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 February 2012, reflects the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of adjustment disorder and substance abuse. The applicant scored a 72 on the PCL-M; he did not disclose in the past any deployment issues to providers and the score could be reflective of the paranoia related to drug abuse. The applicant was legally responsible for his behavior and has no other psychiatric related issues which would interfere with service his ability to know right from wrong. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative proceedings deemed appropriate by command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); and a self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 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, states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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. The applicant's AMHRR record of service, the issues and document submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he received a debilitating injury and was forced to work with that injury for more than a year. The service record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. The applicant contends he receives disability compensation for that injury at 70 percent. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he receives disability compensation at 70 percent. The applicant contends he self-medicated with marijuana to get discharged. The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record and the applicant did not provide any that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. 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, misconduct (drug abuse). The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. 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. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found the VA diagnosed the applicant with PTSD and Schizophrenia, two potentially mitigating diagnoses. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant is 70% service connected for PTSD by the VA which establishes that the condition occurred during military service. The BH documentation in his active duty medical records also establishes that his Schizophrenia likely had its onset while the applicant was on active duty. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. In the opinion of the Boards Medical Advisor, a voting member, given the association of PTSD with avoidant behaviors, there is a nexus between applicant's PTSD and his multiple Failures to Report. As there is an association between PTSD and the use of illicit drugs to self- medicate symptoms, there is a nexus between his diagnosis of PTSD and his wrongful use of spice and cannabis. The offense of possessing a handgun and a box of ammunition in his barracks room is not mitigated by his diagnosis of PTSD. While PTSD can be associated with violence, it is usually brief in duration and unplanned and not typically associated with premeditated behaviors such as stockpiling weapons and ammo. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Partially. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that PTSD is often associated with avoidance behaviors and the use of illicit drugs to self-medicate. While PTSD is a condition associated with irritability and anger, the violence associated with PTSD is usually brief and unplanned and not typically associated with keeping a loaded weapon in a barrack's environment. The applicant's diagnosis of Schizophrenia partially mitigates the offense of having a firearm, ammunition, and other weapons in his barracks room, given the paranoid ideation that frequently accompanies this diagnosis. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that a BH condition partially mitigates the cause for separation. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he received a debilitating injury and was forced to work with that injury for more than a year. The service record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. (2) The applicant contends receives disability compensation for that injury at 80 percent. The ADRB is not bound by U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions, nor do VA decisions have any bearing on the decisions of the ADRB. Decisions reached by the VA to determine if former service members rate certain VA benefits do not affect previous discharge decisions made by the Department of the Army. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the Army when determining a member's discharge characterization. (3) The applicant contends he self-medicated with marijuana to get discharged. The ADRB determined the applicant's drug use was mitigated by his PTSD diagnosis. (4) The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The record confirms the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant's 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. By the stockpiling of weapons and ammunition, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. c. The Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. The majority of the Board determined that the documentation contained in the AMHRR, as well as evidence submitted by the applicant, and the available medical evidence did not support a finding that the applicant's discharge was improper or inequitable. 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. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, the applicant's PTSD and Schizophrenia mitigated the misconduct of drug use, failing to report but not the possession of a handgun, ammunition, and weapons in the barracks room. The Board considered the applicant's length and quality of service to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD and Schizophrenia). Additionally, the applicant did not supply sufficient independent corroborating evidence to support contentions. 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 or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is 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 / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority 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 AR20190005579 3