1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 9 September 2019 b. Date Received: 30 September 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 effect, is a second-generation Army service member following the grandfather who was a veteran of WWII. The applicant is proud to say that the applicant is a first-generation Army officer and college graduate. On 23 August, after returning from leave, the maneuver unit commander facilitated a 100 percent urinalysis test for the troop. On 19 September, the maneuver commander and 1SG informed the applicant that the results from the urinalysis test were positive. The applicant had a temporary lapse of judgement while on leave, and put oneself in a situation that as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Army, should not have been involved in. The applicant states that after a six-month tour in Syria, the applicant had experienced many horrific nightmares, anxiety, depression, anger, and inability to concentrate, which made it a hard time adjusting back into society. The applicant needed a way to help oneself get out of the hole that the applicant had entered into. When the applicant first started realizing that the applicant was having a hard time adjusting back into society, the applicant began to drink heavily to escape the thoughts and get the images from the deployment out of one's head. The applicant drank every day prior to going to work, and every night after getting home from work, which helped numb the daily estranged thoughts. The drinking did not help fight nightmares and while leave, continued to drink heavily and began to look for ways to fight the nightmares. Marijuana was the only thing that helped stopped the nightly nightmares. The applicant was afraid to seek help or any resources the Army offered because of the perceived stigma associated with an officer, as well as Soldiers in combat units, which is to never show weakness. The applicant was afraid of the potential discrimination and exclusion and feared being label as an incompetent leader who could not guide, mentor, nor take care of Soldiers. The applicant was terrified one would jeopardize the image and career, if the leadership and Soldiers were to find out the applicant was seeking help for mental health issues and nightmares. The applicant accepts responsibility for the poor decision and for all of the actions. The applicant tried extremely hard to receive a second chance to prove oneself to the senior leadership, but was denied. The applicant wanted to make a career of the Army, but was discharged for bad judgement. Recently, the applicant has been denied for positions the applicant is highly qualified for and is hindered from achieving what the applicant desires because of "Character of Service". The applicant's hope is to get back into the military and/or be a Senior Executive Representative for a Fortune 500 company someday. The applicant has a passion for mentoring, guiding, and inspiring young men, woman, and Soldiers to become leaders and would love to have the opportunity to do so again. Since learning about testing positive for marijuana, the applicant had taken seven separate urinalysis tests; four volunteer and three random. The applicant sought professional help such as Behavioral Health, Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), and other counseling resources. The applicant has not used any abuse substance or drink any alcohol since receiving professional help for mental health. The applicant made a grave mistake and demonstrated a lapse in judgement. However, these actions do not reflect who the applicant is as a leader or as a person. The entire situation has taken a huge toll on the applicant emotionally. The applicant has made many mistakes in life, but is taking the lessons learned so that the applicant will not make the same mistakes twice. 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 60% service-connected from the VA, but the reasons are unknown. In summary, the applicant does not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a Travel Panel hearing conducted at Warner Robins AFB, GA on 4 February 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2B / JNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 2 August 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 November 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b and 4-2c for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security and derogatory information based on the following reasons: Acts of personal misconduct in that he wrongfully used marijuana between on or about 23 July 2018 and 23 August 2018. On 19 October 2018, he made a false official statement; and, Conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the above referenced items. (3) Legal Consultation Date: On 30 November 2018, the applicant retained a civilian defense attorney. (4) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 20 November 2018, the GOSCA recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for retention and recommend that he be involuntarily eliminated from service / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (5) DASA (Review Boards) Decision / Characterization: 17 July 2019 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 12 May 2017 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education / GT Score: 24 / Bachelor's Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-1 / 13A 5P Field Artillery, General / 2 years, 2 months, 19 days / The applicant's DD Form 214, block 12c, Net Active Service This Period, Year(s) erroneously reflects: 1 year. Based on his entrance on Active Duty, it should reflect: 2 years. d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Syria (5 February 2018 - 18 July 2018) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTEM, ASR, OSR, IRCM-CS g. Performance Ratings: NIF h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 11 September 2018, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 36 (marijuana), during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing, conducted on 23 August 2018. GO Article 15, dated 30 October 2018, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 23 July and 23 August 2018). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $1,553 pay per month for two months; restriction for 60 days (suspended); and, written reprimand. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 20 November 2018, for during a unit urinalysis, he provided a sample of urine that tested positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 February 2019, 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. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; self-authored statement; five character statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. 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 record of service, 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 Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained. Further, the applicant's record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends he suffered from horrific nightmares, anxiety, depression and anger, which affected his behavior and led to his discharge. However, the service record contains no evidence of a diagnosis for any of the disorders and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, 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 shows that on 13 February 2019, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation, which indicates he was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears, the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. However, If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes, if appropriate. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): VA Medical Documents - 8 Pages b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): Applicant provided oral argument and statements in support of the contentions provided in written submissions and in support of previously submitted documentary evidence c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a Travel Panel hearing conducted at Warner Robins AFB, GA on 4 February 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. 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 AR20190015317 5