1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 2 January 2020 b. Date Received: 6 January 2020 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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that the current characterization of service is improper because it was given based on bogus criminal charges that were essentially dropped since there was insufficient evident collected per agent’s investigation report. He was also forced into resignation even though applicant’s addiction was medically induced by the United States Army. Ultimately, applicant has been granted medical benefits from the United States Army, but he also needs an honorable discharge to correct this unjustifiable punishment. The applicant contends not having any drugs in possession. Any report in personnel file of possession of drugs if falsifying documents. The military police investigating found no drugs in possession. Dishonest military officials covered up a scandal. The wrongful use is contributed to being terribly addicted to the opioids received during the treatment that was given by the military doctors. Applicant was very sick, and the Army ignored it. They ignored attorney echoing the same thing in the resignation. The Army thought applicant was supposed to be able to handle opioids when no other citizen could. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 23 June 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 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: Unqualified Resignation / GO 2017-01, and AR 612-205, Table 3, Rule 9 / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 19 September 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF; however, in a Memorandum for Superintendent, United States Military Academy (USMA, West Point, New York, subject “Resignation in lieu of trial by Court-Martial” submitted by the applicant with the application indicates: The Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved the applicant’s request for resignation in lieu of trial by court-martial. Pursuant to AR 612-205, Table 3, Rule 9, the applicant was found to be unsuited for further military service. It was noted that the applicant must ensure recoupment of educational expenses by establishing proper debt in the applicant’s name pursuant to DoD FMR, Volume 7a, Table 2-1, Rule 9 not to exceed $256,275.00. It was directed that the applicant be separated from the USMA and discharged from the United States Army with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. It was noted that prior to separation the applicant must ensure he received a separation history and physical examination that met all the requirements of Department of Defense instruction 6040.46 and Headquarters, Department of the Army EXORD 162-15. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 July 2012 / Service as a USMA CADET b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / 4 years college / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: Cadet / None / 6 years, 2 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 18 July 2011 to 1 July 2012 / HD (United States Military Academy Preparatory School) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Corrected Copy of Orders 264-0002 dated 21 September 2017 from the Department of the Army United States Corps of Cadets, West Point, New York, indicates the applicant was discharged from Company E3, Class of 2016, USMA Cadet Detachment (W1FBA1) West Point, NY, effective 19 September 2017, under the authority of AR 612-205, GO 2017-01. Orders 340-0001, dated 6 December 2017, from the Department of the Army United States Corps of Cadets, West Point, New York, indicates the following order was amended as follows: So much of: Orders 264-0002, dated 21 September 2017, pertaining to the discharge of the applicant was amended as follows: As reads: (c) Individual has completed as separation history and physical examination and is in compliance with Headquarters, Department of the Army Executive Order 162-15, Attachment 3, paragraph 3 and Department of Defense Instruction 6040.46. Amended to remove: (c) Individual has completed as separation history and physical examination and is in compliance with Headquarters, Department of the Army Executive Order 162-15, Attachment 3, paragraph 3 and Department of Defense Instruction 6040.46. CID Report’s dated 5 January 2018 and 17 July 2019, indicate between 1 March 2015 and 7 March 2016 the applicant was the subject of investigation for distribution of Opiates, Possession of Opiates W/Intent to Distribute, Introduction of Opiates W/Intent to Distribute. Failure to Obey General Order, Wrongful Use of Opiates Detected by Urinalysis, Wrongful Use of Amphetamines – Detected by Urinalysis, Possession of Xanax W/Intent to Distribute, Distribution of Cocaine, Possession of Cocaine W/Intent to Distribute, Conspiracy, and Distribution of Xanax. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): See below (1) Applicant provided: Documents submitted with the application (enclosure 4) indicates the applicant was referred by ASAP, from West Point Military Academy on 18 May 2016 because of opiates use. The applicant was also diagnosed as having an opiate use disorder, unspecified and anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS) on 14 June 2016. (2) AMHRR Listed: Memorandum for Commandant of Cadets from the United States Military Academy, Superintendent reference “Medical Waiver for Commissioning – Cadet J.W.R., Company E3, Class of 2016”, dated 13 November 2015 indicating “Pursuant to the authority delegated to him under Army Regulation AR 210-26, and Medical Waiver Authority for Commissioning dated 6 November 2015, approved the medical waiver for commissioning for the applicant IAW AR 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness 4 August 2011.” 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; extract from US News, dated 15 March 2020 reference “A West Point Football Player got hooked on pain pills. Now he owes the government $300K;” and enclosures 1-18 as noted by the applicant’s application (i.e., letter to the House Oversight Committee, letters and complaints to congressman, letters and complaints to Senator, investigative reporter R.S., of NBC News, text messages, applicant’s letters to the pentagon, applicant’s terrible injuries, superintendent medical waiver for applicant, immunity agreement for the applicant, garnishment of the applicant’s income tax checks, letter from the Chief of Staff, applicant’s resignation, applicant’s degree, letter to WestPoint US Justice Department & President of the USA, offer to the applicant to play football for WestPoint, character statements, famous people with same addictions, federal government declares opioids a public emergency, and the applicant’s current status). 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), 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 210-26, Chapter 7 (Separation and Resignations), paragraph 7- 1b(2)(a) cadets who entered the Military Academy from a Regular or Reserve component of any military service assumes an MSO of 8 years when then enter the service pursuant to an enlistment contract, to include admittance to the United States Military Academy Preparatory School (10 USC 651; DODI 1304.25; and DODD 1332.23). Those cadets who enter USMA from USMAPS as invitational reservist will be processed in accordance with AR 612-205, table 3. e. Army Regulation 612-205 set forth the basic authority for appointment and separation of Service Academy Attendees. Chapter 7 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for reasons other than physical disability. A member separated under this chapter will be processed under provisions of Table 3. AR 612-205, Table 3, Rule 9 identifies cadets who are discharged because of unsuitability for military service as contemplated by AR 635-200 will be discharged. f. 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 serv ice 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. 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 available Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the United States Military Academy. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of GO 217-01 and AR 612-205, Table 3 Rule 9, by reason of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant seeks relief contending, that the current characterization of service is improper because it was given based on bogus criminal charges that were essentially dropped since there was insufficient evident collected per agent’s investigation report. He was also forced into resignation even though his addition was medically induced by the United States Army. Ultimately, he has been granted medical benefits from the United States Army, but he also needs his honorable discharge to correct this unjustifiable punishment. The applicant contends he did not have any drugs in his possession. Any report in his personnel file of possession of drugs if falsifying documents. The military police investigating found no drugs in his possession. Dishonest military officials covered up a scandal. The wrongful use is contributed to him being terribly addicted to the opioids that he received during the treatment that he was given by the military doctors. He was very sick, and the Army ignored it. They ignored his attorney echoing the same thing in the resignation. The Army thought he was supposed to be able to handle opioids when no other citizen could. The applicant’s contentions were noted; evidence submitted by the applicant and that in the AMHRR indicate the applicant was referred by ASAP, from West Point Military Academy on 18 May 2016 because of opiates use. The applicant was also diagnosed as having an opiate use disorder, unspecified and anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS) on 14 June 2016. Also; noted in a Memorandum for Commandant of Cadets from the United States Military Academy, Superintendent reference “Medical Waiver for Commissioning – Cadet J.W.R., Company E3, Class of 2016”, dated 13 November 2015 indicating “Pursuant to the authority delegated to him under Army Regulation AR 210-26, and Medical Waiver Authority for Commissioning dated 6 November 2015, approved the medical waiver for commissioning for the applicant IAW AR 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness 4 August 2011.” However, it should be noted, it is unknown if these contentions have merit because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are not contained in the service record. The burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents such as the detailed discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will still be the applicant’s responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the complete discharge packet is not available in the official record. 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 that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses: the applicant held in-service diagnoses of Acute Reaction to Stress and Adjustment Disorder due to psychosocial stressors and Anxiety Disorder Unspecified secondary to lifelong anxiety. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Acute Reaction to Stress and Adjustment Disorder due to psychosocial stressors and Anxiety Disorder Unspecified secondary to lifelong anxiety. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the misconduct is not a progression or sequala of a reaction to stress or adjustment difficulties. In considering the applicant’s in-service assertion lifelong anxiety triggered drug use, although substances can alleviate anxiety, anxiety does not render an individual unable to make a conscious choice understanding right from wrong and potential consequences. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Acute Reaction to Stress and Adjustment Disorder due to psychosocial stressors and Anxiety Disorder Unspecified secondary to lifelong anxiety outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – distribution of Opiates, Possession of Opiates W/Intent to Distribute, Introduction of Opiates W/Intent to Distribute. Failure to Obey General Order, Wrongful Use of Opiates Detected by Urinalysis – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant seeks relief contending, that the current characterization of service is improper because it was given based on bogus criminal charges that were essentially dropped since there was insufficient evident collected per agent’s investigation report. Applicant was also forced into resignation even though addiction was medically induced by the United States Army. The Board considered this contention and determined there was insufficient evidence in the AMHRR or provided by the applicant to provide merit to the applicant’s claim. The Board voted not to upgrade the discharge as the applicant’s assertions alone, and lack of sufficiently mitigating BH conditions, do not outweigh the nature and severity of the applicant’s basis for separation. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Acute Reaction to Stress and Adjustment Disorder due to psychosocial stressors and Anxiety Disorder Unspecified secondary to lifelong anxiety outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – distribution of Opiates, Possession of Opiates W/Intent to Distribute, Introduction of Opiates W/Intent to Distribute. Failure to Obey General Order, Wrongful Use of Opiates Detected by Urinalysis. The Board considered the applicant’s contentions of impropriety and inequity and determined there is insufficient evidence contained in the record of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the Command. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s UOTHC was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to HD. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change 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 AR20200002394 1