1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 April 2019 (signed application, dated 23 April 2020) b. Date Received: 1 May 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, after the first deployment to Afghanistan, the applicant began to suffer from PTSD/Anxiety/Alcohol Abuse daily. Prior to the second deployment and while on block leave, the applicant took the mother's prescription medication for anxiety. The medication helped by calming the applicant, and ultimately, it was beneficial for the applicant's mental health. The applicant was a great Solder and served honorably. The applicant led and served honorably through five years of commitment and two tours to Afghanistan. The medication the applicant took was a mistake. The applicant was not prescribed it and it should have never been in one's system. The applicant was severely struggling and was not sure the applicant was returning from deployment. During the second deployment, the applicant was a specialist, who was in charge of a mortar squad in the unit. At the end of the deployment, the applicant was informed of the positive drug test, and still, served honorably. Although, the applicant was suffering, the applicant remained committed to always placing the Army and mission, and others first. Throughout the separation proceedings, the applicant was constantly told of not being chaptered, but it had to be initiated because of the positive test. Through it all, the applicant did not admit the issues because the applicant would be non-deployable. The applicant has since received 70 percent rating for PTSD from VA. The applicant never had any other type of disciplinary action. The applicant even reenlisted and was up for promotion. However, the disability the applicant received while serving got the best of the applicant. The applicant made one minor mistake caused by PTSD, which the applicant does not want to jeopardize the entire future, and compromise the integrity of honorably serving the country. The applicant wants nothing more than to be able serve the country and community. 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 no BH diagnoses while on active duty. The applicant is 80% service-connected; 70% for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Nightmare Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, and PTSD. In summary, the applicant has 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 13 May 2020, 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), a prior period of honorable service, and post-service accomplishments. 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: 28 February 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 November 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between 17 May 2015 and 17 June 2015, the applicant wrongfully used Oxazepam, Nordazepam, and Temazepam. (3) Recommended Characterization: Initial recommendation was General Under Honorable Conditions; however, the chain-of-command also recommended retention. (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 22 November 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 January 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 January 2015 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11C10, Indirect Fire Infantryman / 4 years, 11 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (20 March 2012 to 19 January 2015) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (24 January 2013 to 9 October 2013), (30 June 2015 to 30 March 2016) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; AAM; AGCM; NDSM; ACM-2CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR-2; NATO MDL-2; CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An Electronic Copy of the DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing), dated 23 November 2015, indicates the specimen collected on 17 June 2015, on an "IR" (Inspection, Random) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for Nordazepam, Oxazepam, and Temazepam Counseling statement for testing positive for illegitimate substances. FG Article 15, dated 2 January 2016 is illegible. The punishment according to Article 15 Punishment Worksheet indicates a reduction to E-2 and an oral reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 June 2016, providing no diagnosis, psychiatrically cleared the applicant for chapter 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 15 April 2019; Disabilities data; Legal Action Routing Sheet, dated 28 November 2016; separation decision memorandum, dated 5 January 2017; battalion commander's recommendation memorandum; Commander's Report; Separation notification memorandum; ERB; discharge orders with amendment; and reenlistment documents. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, since his discharge, he has earned an associate's degree, and he has met every qualification and passed every test to get employed with the El Paso Police Department. He was also selected to be a Border Patrol Agent. 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 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's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues involving suffering from his PTSD, anxiety, and alcohol abuse, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence provided no behavioral health issues diagnoses. A VA Rated Disabilities data sheet provides no identification of the individual who received 70 percent service-connected "post-traumatic stress disorder with anxiety condition and alcohol abuse (PTSD related to combat)." However, based on the medical record available to the Board, 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. Further, if there are no medical records available to the Board, and 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., an official behavioral health or PTSD diagnosis by a competent medical authority), for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. 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 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 13 May 2020, 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), a prior period of honorable service, and post-service accomplishments. 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 AR20190007383 1