1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 July 2019 b. Date Received: 16 July 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was discharged more than eight years ago. He was informed at a VA court he could get his discharged upgraded after a year. 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 diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder/with anxiety/with anxiety and depressed mood; Alcohol Disorders; Cannabis Intoxication; Depression. Review of the VA medical record indicates that it contains only DOD content. The applicant is not service-connected from the VA. 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 records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 18 November 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 20 September 2010 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 July 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he missed movement to Iraq (3 June 2010); he tested positive for marijuana (7 June 2010); and underage drinking. (3) Recommended Characterization: The applicant's chain of command recommended an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 July 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 August 2010 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 July 2009 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 90 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 89A10, Ammunition Stock Control Account Specialist / 1 year, 1 month, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 12 March 2010, for failing to obey a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully drinking alcohol underage (25 January 2010); and knowingly consuming alcoholic beverages while under the age of 21 (25 January 2010); reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $723 pay for two months (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Summarized Article 15, dated 17 May 2010, for without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed appointed place of duty (1 April 2010); extra duty for 14 days. The applicant received a Bar to Reenlistment, dated 29 June 2010. Summary Court-Martial, dated 20 July 2010, the applicant was found guilty of the following offenses; through neglect miss the movement of his flight to Iraq with which he was required in the course of duty to move (3 June 2010); and wrongful use of marijuana between (8 May 2010 and 7 June 2010). The applicant was sentenced to forfeiture of $964 pay for one month and confinement for 16 days. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 June 2010, revealed the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. He did not suffer from any mental health problem that required disposition through medical channels at that time. He screened negative for mTBI and PTSD. He was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right. He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative or legal proceedings. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed necessary by Command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages) 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states in his application he worked at Intel and becoming a chef. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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. 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. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge 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 the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's record of service and the issues submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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 military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the 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 and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending, he was discharged more than eight years ago. The US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to upgrade a discharge based on time elapsed since the discharge. Each case is decided on its own merits based on all factors contained in the official record or as submitted by the applicant. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. The applicant further contends, he was informed at a VA court he could get his discharged upgraded after a year. the US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable. Notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the record shows that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, Separation Authority as "AR 625-200, Chapter 10," block 26, Separation Code as "KFS", block 27, Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code as "3" and block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation as "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial." In view of the foregoing, it appears from the record of evidence that block 25, Separation Authority should read "AR 625-200, paragraph 14-12c(2)," block 26, Separation Code to read "JKK," block 27, Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code to "4" and block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation to "Misconduct (Drug Abuse)" as approved by the separation authority. Except for the foregoing modifications, 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. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 18 November 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / 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 AR20200002290 1