1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 29 May 2019 b. Date Received: 5 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, at the end of her enlistment she was not in the right state of mind and began to get into trouble. She experienced a traumatic event which led to her battle with depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She went to behavioral health to seek help and things only got worse with her depression, PTSD, and anxiety. She had family problems and began to use opiates to numb the pain. She entered rehabilitation in 2016 and her life changed tremendously. She has been clean and sober and is now a licensed mortgage loan officer. She is married and has a child. She has been receiving help coping with her ongoing PTSD, anxiety, and depression through the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). In a records review conducted on 10 September 2021, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI, MST, PTSD diagnoses), 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 the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to 1. 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 / Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 27 June 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 June 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant tested positive for codeine and morphine on or about 23 April 2014. (3) Recommended Characterization: General, (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 June 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 June 2014 / General, (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 June 2010 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 104 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W, Health Care Specialist / 3 years, 11 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 25 March 2014, reflects the applicant was absent without authority from on or about 13 March 2014 to on or about 15 March 2014. The punishment consisted of reduction to private first class/E-3; forfeiture of $1017.00 pay per month for 2 months, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 30 May 2014; and extra duty for 45 days. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 14 May 2014, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL 3 days, (13 March 2014 - 15 March 2014) The applicant returned to his unit. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 May 2014, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety and opioid-related disorder, NOS. CID Report of Investigation dated 20 May 2014. The applicant enrolled into the Army Substance Abuse Program. The applicant received several Developmental Counseling Forms for various acts of misconduct. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, AAM Certificate, Certificate of Appreciation, Certificate of Achievement-2, Certificate of Graduation, DA Form 638, Certificate of Affiliation, Certificate of Training, Academy of Health Sciences Diploma, Mortgage Loan Officer License 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states she has been clean and sober and is now a licensed mortgage loan officer. She is married and has a child. She has been receiving help coping with her ongoing PTSD, anxiety, and depression through VA. 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) 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. (5) 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. (6) 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. 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's AMHRR record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests an upgrade to Honorable. The applicant, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the special trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. The applicant contends she experienced a traumatic event which led to her battle with depression and PTSD. She went to behavioral health to seek help and things only got worse with her depression, PTSD, and anxiety. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service adjustment disorder with anxiety and an opioid-related disorder; however, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted The record reflects that on 14 May 2014 and 30 May 2014, the applicant underwent mental status evaluations which indicated she was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The applicant's chain of command determined that she knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluations. The applicant also contends she had family problems and began to use opiates to numb the pain. The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that she ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The Army Discharge Review Board 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 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. 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. Applicant's in-service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder (AD) and her post- service diagnosis of PTSD due to MST are both potentially mitigating BH conditions. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. Applicant has an in-service diagnosis of AD. She is also 100% service connected for PTSD due to MST by the VA. Service connection indicates that the conditions occurred while she was on active duty. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. As there is an association between PTSD and the use of illicit drugs to self-medicate symptoms, there is a nexus between her diagnosis of PTSD and her wrongful use of opiate medication. (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 drug abuse. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the BH conditions outweighed the cause for separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends she experienced a traumatic event which led to her battle with depression and PTSD. The Board determined this contention was valid and outweighed the applicant's drug abuse, warranting relief. (2) The applicant also contends she had family problems and began to use opiates to numb the pain. The Board considered this contention after granting relief due to mitigating PTSD diagnosis. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI, MST, PTSD diagnoses), 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 due to MST outweighed and mitigated the drug abuse. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JFF. (3) The Board voted to change the RE code to RE-1. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Secretarial Authority / JFF d. Change RE Code to: RE-1 e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3 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 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20190010763 1