1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 January 2020 b. Date Received: 29 January 2020 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 and a change of the narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority. The applicant contends a medical discharge should have been received instead of a discharge due to misconduct. However, the applicant's contention that a medical discharge should have been received does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant contends self-medicating was used to deal with undiagnosed PTSD, TBI, and depression issues. The record shows that on 22 June 2005, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible. It appears, the applicant's chain of command determined that the applicant was mentally responsible as indicated by the mental status evaluation. However, the applicant provides evidence from VA which shows the applicant was awarded a 50-percent service-connected disability rating for PTSD. The applicant contends that family issues contributed to the behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. However, the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that the applicant ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends there was honorable service. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service prior to the incident that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for those accomplishments. In a records review conducted on 28 April 2021, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (TBI, OBHI, and PTSD diagnoses). 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, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-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: 20 September 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 September 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: misconduct - abuse of illegal drugs. (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 7 September 2005 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 September 2005 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 November 2002/ 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / 4 years HS / 107 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 21B10, Combat Engineer / 2 years, 10 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / Iraq (11 February 2004 - 10 February 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: VUA, MUC, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ALB, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG, Article15, dated 8 June 2005, for wrongfully using tetrahydrocannabinol on or between 11 April 2005 and 10 May 2005; wrongfully using methylenedioxy-amphetamine on or between 7 May 2005 and 10 May 2005; and wrongfully using amphetamine on or between 8 May 2005 and 10 May 2005. The punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-1; forfeiture of $618.00 pay, suspended, to automatically be remitted if not vacated on or before 11 September 2005; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 June 2005, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with a clear thought process and could participate in the proceedings. Several Developmental Counseling Statements for misconduct, and recommendation for separation from the Army UP Chapter 14-12c. DA Form 8003, Army Substance Abuse Program Referral dated 7 June 2005 i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 29 October 2015, shows the applicant was awarded a 50-percent service- connected disability rating for PTSD - Combat/Fear - Easing Standard effective 4 June 2015. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, DD Form 214, Memo (Confirmed Urinalysis Testing Results, DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), DD Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), Memo (Psychological Evaluation for Administrative Separation), Memo (Separation Under AR 635-200, Chapter 14), DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), MFR (Duty Performance), VA Rating Decision, Personal Statement. 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 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) 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. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) Paragraph 14-12c, states 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. 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, paragraph 12c (2), misconduct (Drug Abuse). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKK" will be assigned an RE Code of "4." 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the 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. By the misconduct (drug abuse), the applicant 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 he should have been retained on Active Duty The applicant, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the special 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 that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. The applicant contends a medical discharge should have been received instead of a discharge due to misconduct. However, the applicant's contention that a medical discharge should have been received does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant contends self-medicating was used to deal with undiagnosed PTSD, TBI, and depression issues. The record shows that on 22 June 2005, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible. It appears, the applicant's chain of command determined that the applicant was mentally responsible as indicated by the mental status evaluation. However, the applicant provides evidence from VA which shows the applicant was awarded a 50-percent service-connected disability rating for PTSD. The applicant contends that family issues contributed to the behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. However, the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that the applicant ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends there was honorable service. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service prior to the incident that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for those accomplishments. 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) Applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD, TBI and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), all three of which are potentially mitigating BH conditions. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? (YES) The VA has determined that the applicant's diagnoses of PTSD, MDD and TBI occurred while he was on active duty. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? (YES) The diagnosis of PTSD and TBI, under Liberal Consideration, mitigate his wrongful use of drugs. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? (YES) The diagnosis of PTSD and TBI, under Liberal Consideration, mitigates his wrongful use of drugs. b. The ADRB reviewed the applicant's contentions about his service. The ADRB found that this issue need not be reached because the applicant's existing BH condition mitigates the misconduct which led to discharge. c. The Board determined the applicant contends the event that caused his discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Documents that the applicant provided as well as those contained within the applicant's AMHRR and medical records convinced the ADRB that this was the case, and therefore the Board decided that an upgrade was appropriate, particularly in light of the applicant's mitigating BH condition. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service because the applicant had a diagnosis of TBI and PTSD which mitigated his drug use. (2) The Board voted to change the narrative reason to Minor Infractions because they determined that, because the applicant's drug use is mitigated by the diagnosed BH condition, the reason of Drug Abuse was no longer appropriate. The associated SPD code is JKN. (3) The RE Code with change to 3. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) / JKN d. Change RE Code to: RE-3 e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 NA - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Reentry 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 AR201200003029 1