1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 20 November 2019 b. Date Received: 26 November 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant's Requests and Issues: 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 served the first full term of enlistment honorably. The applicant extended the enlistment contract after completing the BLC (Basic Leadership Course), not knowing it was not a complete reenlistment. The applicant is now unable to receive the GI Bill. Although taking full responsibility for the actions leading to the separation, the applicant feels it is unfair to not receive the educational benefits. The applicant states being fast-tracking, leading Soldiers, and almost pinning on the E-6 rank does not matter, when making the one false move and a group of people who barely know you decide the outcome. An upgrade would allow the applicant to attend school. The applicant understands what occurred at an early age in the military was not morally correct and has learned a lesson from the event. The applicant realizes having failed the Soldiers and leaders. The CID had arrested the applicant in 2018 for what had occurred in 2016. Although the event was extremely wrong, the applicant would like a second chance. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 24 August 2022, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI diagnosis and MST). 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, Chapter 15, 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 3. 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: 30 June 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF, but according to the Commander's Report, dated 23 May 2018, the basis for separation was: On 1 October 2016 and 31 December 2016, the applicant wrongfully used psilocybin mushrooms. (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 June 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 April 2014 / 3 years, 21 weeks (The applicant extended the enlistment by a period of 12 months on 15 February 2017, giving the applicant a new ETS of 1 September 2018.) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / Associate Degree / 88 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 91L10, Construction Equipment Repairer / 4 years, 2 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 1 April 2017 - 21 March 2018 - Did Not Meet Standard h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 21 March 2018, for wrongfully using psilocybin mushrooms, a schedule I controlled substance (between 1 October 2016 and 31 December 2016). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1,185 (suspended); and extra duty for 14 days. CID Report of Investigation - Initial Final, dated 13 March 2018, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Use of a Controlled Substance, Psychedelic Mushroom, when the applicant admitted to consuming, not detected by urinalysis. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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), 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. (7) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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, misconduct (drug abuse). 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-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 8. SUMMARY 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 Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends having served honorably the first term of enlistment and although being fast tracking, leading Soldiers, and almost pinning on the E-6 rank, but making the one false move led to the separation. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of the service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the serious incidents of misconduct and the documented action under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Although making the one false move, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of the service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veterans' benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends what occurred at an early age in the military was not morally correct and has learned a lesson from the event. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service The applicant contends the CID had arrested the applicant in 2018 for what had occurred in 2016. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: Chronic Adjustment DO (30% SC); MST. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant's report of MST is documented in the military medical record; VA service connection (30%) for Chronic Adjustment DO (CAD) establishes the BH condition began during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has both a mitigating BH condition, Chronic Adjustment DO (CAD), and a mitigating experience, MST. As there is an association between Chronic Adjustment DO and MST with use of illicit substances to self-medicate symptoms, there is a nexus between her CAD and MST and her wrongful use of psilocybin. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that the applicant has both a mitigating BH condition, Chronic Adjustment DO (CAD), and a mitigating experience, MST. As there is an association between Chronic Adjustment DO and MST with use of illicit substances to self-medicate symptoms, there is a nexus between her CAD and MST and her wrongful use of psilocybin. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends having served honorably the first term of enlistment. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant's service record. (2) The applicant contends making the one false move led to the separation. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's OBHI and MST fully outweighing the applicant's drug abuse basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare, or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. (4) The applicant contends realizing what occurred at an early age in the military was not morally correct, a lesson was learned from the event. The applicant contends making the one false move led to the separation. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's OBHI and MST fully outweighing the applicant's drug abuse basis for separation. (5) The applicant contends the CID had arrested the applicant in 2018 for what had occurred in 2016. The applicant contends making the one false move led to the separation. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's OBHI and MST fully outweighing the applicant's drug abuse basis for separation. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI diagnosis and MST). 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, Chapter 15, 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 3. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant had a BH condition which mitigated the applicant's misconduct of drug abuse. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the applicant's reason for discharge and accompanying SPD code to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. (3) The Board voted to change the RE code to RE-3. 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-3 e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 15 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 AR20200001656 1