1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 November 2019 b. Date Received: 9 December 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was a nightmare when the unit declared the applicant a drug user because of failing a random drug test by the command. The applicant never failed a drug test, nor had any concerns with taking any drug tests before or after. The applicant was shocked and bewildered when informed of failing the random testing. The applicant provided all the medications to the first sergeant and was assured of being cleared from any wrongdoing. However, the unit focused on one medication called, "Lorcet Hydrocodone," a pain medication prescribed to the applicant in 2010 at Fort McPherson. The medicine was kept for pain resulting from being diagnosed with Crohn's Disease and as instructed on the bottle to use as needed. The unit tried several times to have the applicant medically discharged, but the applicant along with the medical provider fought against it. The applicant was immediately and hastily discharged from Hawaii without proper assistance with transitioning out of the Army, nor informed of applying for disability. The command promised the applicant would receive two more paychecks following the discharge never came. It has been nothing but a struggle since the discharge, but by "the grace of God," the applicant was able to avoid becoming a "homeless veteran." The applicant worked into a corporate position with over 900 employees and 58 restaurants and was proud to serve the "Biscuitville Family." The applicant diligently worked with the local support programs to feed the homeless and provide shelter. The applicant is a huge advocate for the SPCA and local animal rights programs. The applicant desires to run for an office with the local government, but unable to with the current discharge. The applicant provided documents and newspaper clippings, and references. An honorable discharge would allow the applicant to serve the Country and one day be buried with Military honors and be respected by the spouse and children. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 28 September 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, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD diagnosis). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of 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: 2 March 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 February 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (Note: on 4 February 2013, the General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) approved the applicant's request for a conditional waiver.) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 October 2009 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 34 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68R10, Veterinary Food Inspector / 9 years, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 9 October 2003 - 13 January 2004 / NA ADT, 14 January 2004 - 21 May 2004 / HD USAR, 22 May 2004 - 31 January 2005 / HD RA, 1 February 2005 - 3 July 2006 / HD RA, 4 July 2006 - 1 October 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA, Hawaii / Iraq (1 October 2005 - 5 October 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, ARCOM, MUC, ARGM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 2 January 2013; and from "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 8 January 2013. The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 1 March 2013, reflects the applicant was reduced in grade from E-4 to E-3, effective 9 August 2012, and the applicant was flagged for Involuntary Separation or Discharge (Field Initiated) (BA) on 10 August 2012, and for Adverse Action (AA) on 28 November 2012. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a Veterinary Medical Director letter, dated 16 November 2019, which reflected on the applicant being susceptible to a serious psychological impact of euthanizing large number of animals over time, because the applicant was cross trained to perform euthanasia by lethal injections, while serving with a Veterinary Service during OIF in Baghdad, Iraq from October 2005 to October 2006. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; Memorandum, dated 16 November 2019, by a medical director; Animal Euthanasia and Traumatic Stress article, dated 15 October 2013; certificate of achievement, dated 21 August 2013; six certificates of achievement; two certificates of appreciation; membership of Ridgeway Church of God, dated 10 November 2013; two photographs depicting the applicant; BCT certificate of training; AAM certificate; four course completion certificates; two AGCM Orders; listing of references; two recognition certificates; DD Forms 214 and 214C; July 2006 and October 2009 Honorable Discharge certificates; 2006 and 2009 Oath of Reenlistment certificates; Physical Profile, dated 18 November 2009; doctor's letter, dated 18 November 2009; ARCOM Recommendation for Award; ARCOM certificate; and 2005-2006 Squad list. Additional: Newspaper Article. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is in a corporate position with over 900 employees and 58 Restaurants; has worked with the local support programs to feed the homeless and provide shelter; and is a huge advocate for the SPCA and local Animal rights programs. 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) 3-8a states A Soldier is entitled to an honorable characterization of service if limited- use evidence (see AR 600-85) is initially introduced by the Government in the discharge proceedings, and the discharge is based upon those proceedings. The separation authority will consult with the servicing Judge Advocate in cases involving limited use evidence. (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(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. (8) 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-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) record of service, 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 Army. The applicant's AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's digital signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), by reason of Misconduct (Drug Abuse), with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Drug Abuse)," and the separation code is "JKK." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends of being shocked and bewildered when informed of failing the unit's random drug testing and being declared a drug user-the applicant never failed a drug test, nor had any concerns with taking any drug tests before or after. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity. The applicant contends that medical issues may have contributed to the discharge from the Army. However, the available AMHRR record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. The applicant contends being immediately and hastily discharged from Hawaii without proper assistance with transitioning out of the Army, nor being informed of applying for disability, and the command had promised the applicant would receive two more paychecks following the discharge, which never came. The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what he believes may be an unfair discharge is not supportable by the available evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 4. An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The applicant contends having worked into a corporate position with over 900 employees and 58 restaurants, proudly serving the "Biscuitville Family," and diligently worked with the local support programs to feed the homeless and provide shelter. The Army Discharge Review Board 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 may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after 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. The third-party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character and performance. However, the person providing the reference statement was not able or in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, the statement does not provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be the applicant's responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the complete discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are 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 the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: the VA has diagnosed the applicant with PTSD, delayed onset, related to his military duties while deployed. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that, while the VA has not service connected the applicant for any BH condition, review of the VA records indicates that his diagnosis of PTSD, delayed onset, is directly related to his deployment history. (3) Does the condition or experience excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has a mitigating BH condition, PTSD, delayed onset. As there is an association between PTSD and use of illicit drugs to self-medicate painful emotional symptoms, there is a nexus between his diagnosis of PTSD and his wrongful use of illicit drugs. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB determined that the condition or experience outweighed the basis of separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The SPD codes identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty, and administratively linked to the reason for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. In this case, the Board voted to grant an upgrade in the characterization to Honorable. (2) The applicant contends being shocked and bewildered when informed of failing the unit's random drug testing and being declared a drug user-the applicant never failed a drug test, nor had any concerns with taking any drug tests before or after. (3) The applicant contends that medical issues may have contributed to the discharge from the Army. The Board considered all the evidence from the DoD and VA health records and determined there was a medically mitigating condition that outweighed the basis of separation. (4) The applicant contends being immediately and hastily discharged from Hawaii without proper assistance with transitioning out of the Army, nor being informed of applying for disability, and the command had promised the applicant would receive two more paychecks following the discharge, which never came. 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 PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's drug abuse basis for separation. (5) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service, and one day be buried with military honors and be respected by the spouse and children. The Board determined recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army's needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes, if appropriate. Additionally, 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. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD diagnosis). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD mitigated the applicant's misconduct of drug abuse. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (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: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: RE-3 a. 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 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 AR20200004379 1