1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 July 2019 b. Date Received: 25 July 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, PTSD contributed directly to the discharging offenses. The condition became worse resulting in a single offense that caused the involuntary separation. The applicant received a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, and has had no criminal offenses since discharge. In a records review conducted on 11 February 2022, 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 (OBHI, TBI, and 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, 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 29 August 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 May 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant tested positive for marijuana during a unit conducted urinalysis on 4 December 2012. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 10 June 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 August 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 November 2009 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 12N10, Horizontal Construction Engineer / 3 years, 9 months, and 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (4 December 2010 - 15 November 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NATOMDL, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-2CS, OSR-2, ASR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 27 March 2013, for wrongfully using marijuana, (between 4 November 2012 and 4 December 2012). The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $758.00 pay per month for two months, 45 days extra duty, restriction to the limits of company area, dining and medical facilities, and place of worship for 45 days, and an oral reprimand. CID Report of Investigation - Initial Final, dated 8 February 2013, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Use of a Controlled Substance when he submitted a urine specimen on 4 December 2012, during the conduct of a unit urinalysis test, which subsequently tested positive for marijuana. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 3 December 2012 reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 84 (marijuana), during an Inspection Other (IO) urinalysis testing. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment form, dated 6 December 2012, reflects the applicant self-referred in the ASAP. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 February 2013, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. Further assessment is needed to determine fitness for duty. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant has been screened for substance use disorders (i.e., alcohol and drugs). The applicant has already been referred to ASAP. The applicant will need further evaluation to determine whether he is cleared for Chapter 14 discharge. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 11 February 2013, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was unfit for duty due to a serious mental condition that is not likely to resolve within one year. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant should be referred to a medical board. The applicant was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The applicant has a medical condition that will lead to a medical board. The applicant is not cleared, therefore, for administrative action by chapter 14. The applicant provided a copy of a VA disability letter, dated 21 July 2019, reflecting the applicant is receiving service-connected disability compensation rated at 40 percent. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Enlisted Record Brief; DD Form 214; VA Benefit Verification Letter; W-4; Official Educational Transcripts; Equifax Credit Report. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is pursuing a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science and has obtained employment. 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 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. (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 "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-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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends his AMHRR contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in- service PTSD. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 11 February 2013, which indicates the applicant was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The applicant was not cleared, therefore, for administrative action by chapter 14. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends the Veterans Administration has granted a service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty. The available medical evidence in the AMHRR shows the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during the discharge processing, warranting separation processing through medical channels. The applicant obtained a Bachelor's degree and employment in the local community. 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, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation. Applicant has in-service diagnoses of PTSD, mild TBI, Anxiety DO NOS, Adjustment DO and 30% VA service connection for PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. Applicant has in-service diagnoses of PTSD, mild TBI, Anxiety DO NOS, Adjustment DO and 30% VA service connection for PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that the applicant has two mitigating BH conditions, PTSD and TBI. As both conditions are associated with the use of illicit substances to self-medicate symptoms, there is a nexus between the applicant's diagnoses of PTSD and TBI and his positive urinalysis for THC. (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 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 his AMHRR contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in-service PTSD. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to PTSD mitigating the applicant's drug charges. (2) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. However, the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD mitigated the one- time THC use, and that relief was warranted. (3) The applicant contends the Veterans Administration has granted a service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant's time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member's discharge characterization. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD mitigated the applicant's drug use, thus warranting relief. (4) The applicant contends obtaining a Bachelor's degree and employment in the local community. 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 PTSD diagnosis mitigating the THC use. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant had PTSD which mitigated the applicant's THC use. 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-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 AR20200002199 3