1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 13 June 2019 b. Date Received: 17 June 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was going through a medical evaluation board (MEB) for behavior health and using SUDS to minimize PTSD symptoms (self- medicate). The applicant failed a urinalysis and the unit chaptered the applicant instead of continuing with MEB. The applicant has completed VA SUD program, in-patient PTSD treatment three times, and is connected with NA through the VA. He continues his behavioral health outpatient treatment and is now a peer mentor for other veterans in the VA SUD program. The applicant states, he is 100 percent service connected Permanent and Total, for his behavioral health. In a records review conducted on 21 January 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD diagnoses), Limited Use violation by command, 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), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 28 April 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: The applicant was notified of intent to separate on 18 January 2006. The notification reflects the applicant forgot to sign said document and was AWOL. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant tested positive on 13 December 2005, for wrongful use of methamphetamines. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 18 January 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 March 2006 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 October 2003 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / Some College / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 4 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (15 November 2003 - 3 November 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: OSR, ASR, GWOTSM, GWOTEM, NDSM / The applicant's AMHRR reflects award of the CIB, however, the award is not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Laboratory Confirmed Biochemical Test Results dated 5 January 2006, reflects the applicant tested positive for methamphetamines, during a Command Directed (CO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 13 December 2005. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 64 days (AWOL, 23 February 2006 - 28 April 2006) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 November 2005, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings, However, the applicant was deemed unsuitable for continued military service on basis of the following diagnoses: Axis I: Polysubstance Use Disorder; Axis II: Personality Disorder NOS (including clusters B features). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; DA Form 3822-R. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he continues his behavioral health outpatient treatment and is now a peer mentor for other veterans in the VA SUD program. 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), 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 3-8a states A Soldier is entitled to an honorable characterization of service if limited-use evidence (see AR 600-85, chap 6) is initially introduced by the Government in the discharge proceedings, and the discharge is based upon those proceedings. The separation authority will consult with the servicing Judge Advocate in cases involving limited use evidence. (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 prescribes 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 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. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's separation packet contains a DD Forms 2624 (Specimen Custody Document for Drug Testing) and a Laboratory Confirmed Biochemical Test Results, which show the urinalysis test was coded "CO," which indicates "Command Directed" testing. The government introduced these documents into the discharge process, revealing the commander directed an individual test for fitness for duty. The commander had a reasonable suspicion the applicant used a controlled substance, but did not have probable cause. The Command Directed Testing is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85. Use of this information mandates award of an honorable discharge. The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct The applicant contends he was self-medicating for PTSD symptoms. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in-service Polysubstance Use Disorder and Personality Disorder NOS (including cluster B features). The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 29 November 2005, which indicates the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence of a PTSD diagnosis. The applicant contends he continues his behavioral health outpatient treatment and is now a peer mentor for other veterans in the VA SUD program. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. 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. 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 the applicant's DOD and VA health records. The VA has diagnosed and service connected (100%) the applicant for PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The VA has diagnosed and service connected (100%) the applicant for PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. As there is an association between PTSD, self-medication with illicit drugs and avoidance behaviors, there is a nexus between his diagnosis of PTSD and his positive UDS for methamphetamine as well as his 64-day period of AWOL. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that PTSD is often associated with the applicant's bases for separation for the reasons listed in (3) above. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the BH conditions outweighed the basis for separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the discharge should be for medical reasons. The Board determined that relief was warranted, but medical reasons did not apply in this case. (2) The contends he was self-medicating for PTSD symptoms. Due to the nexus between PTSD and use of substances as self-medication, the Board determined this contention was valid and voted that relief was warranted. (3) The applicant contends he continues his behavioral health outpatient treatment and is now a peer mentor for other veterans in the VA SUD program. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must 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. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD diagnoses), Limited Use violation by command, and post-service accomplishments. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD diagnosis mitigated the AWOL and drug abuse bases for discharge. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The RE code will not change, as Board determined the applicant's mitigating condition is also service-limiting. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry 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 I'm not sure what P & T means ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20190009097 1