1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 November 2019 b. Date Received: 17 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated unfounded incident in over 20 months of service with no other adverse action. The discharge is improper because the dismissed civilian charges listed on enlistment documents was discussed in the discharge proceedings. The discharge was improper because the applicant was not allowed due process. An upgrade would provide scholarships for medical School. The separation authority did not have access to the letters written by parent and grandparents on the applicant's behalf, because they were never forwarded by the Legal office. The discharge has precluded the applicant from obtaining employment, education scholarships, and veterans' benefits. The injustice would follow the applicant throughout the life. The annotation on the DD Form 214 as drug abuse would keep the applicant from becoming a doctor. The medical records verify the applicant's PTSD screenings were positive. An upgrade would enable the applicant to obtain a refund of the Educational Contributions totaling $1200 and apply for other veteran scholarships. The applicant has completed all the requirements of a State Community College with a 3.785 overall GPA. The applicant's educational goal is to become a physical therapist, which requires obtaining a PhD. The applicant, through interviews with the college president, was selected to serve as the Community College Ambassador, which enabled the applicant to receive a scholarship for the tuition and books. The applicant is attending Tennessee State University as a junior pursuing a medical degree, followed by applying for graduate school with stiff competition. The applicant is a respectable, honest citizen who would like to contribute to the world through serving in the medical field. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 9 December 2022, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI 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 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: 1 August 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 July 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between 1 and 2 May 2016, the applicant wrongfully used methylenedioxymethamphetamine, also known as Ecstasy, a schedule I controlled substance. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 18 July 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 July 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 January 2015 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / High School Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 1 year, 8 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: DEP, 7 November 2014 - 11 January 2015 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 18 May 2016, reflects the applicant tested positive for methylenedioxymethamphetamine, MDMA 718, during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 2 May 2016. i. FG Article 15, dated 7 July 2016, for wrongfully using methylenedioxymethamphetamine, as known as Ecstasy (between 1 and 2 May 2016). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $783 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. j. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None k. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 2 June 2016, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible and has the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with negative results for mTBI and positive results for PTSD, but there did not appear to be a relationship between the PTSD and the alleged misconduct. The command was advised the applicant should continue attending ASAP and begin behavioral health appointment until administratively separated from service. VA letter dated 26 December 2017, which reflects the VA determined and granted the applicant service connection for an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression. The applicant provided a copy of a VA disability rating decision, dated 26 December 2017, reflecting the applicant was rated 30 percent disability for an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; self-authored statement; third-party letter; VA Form 22-5281 and VA Decision Letter; educational achievements; and military (AMHRR) and medical records as noted on the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant attended a State Community College; completed all requirements with a 3.785 overall GPA; and served as the community college ambassador and attending Tennessee State University pursuing a medical degree. 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(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. (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 "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-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 Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because it was based an isolated incident in over 20 months of service with no other adverse action. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5, 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 discharge is improper because the dismissed civilian charges listed on enlistment documents was discussed in the discharge proceedings; the applicant was not allowed due process; and the separation authority did not have access to the letters by parent and grandparents, because they were never forwarded by the Legal office. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the discharge precluded the applicant from obtaining employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends the discharge precluded the applicant from obtaining educational scholarships and veterans' benefits, and an upgrade would provide scholarships for medical School and enable the applicant to obtain a refund of the Educational Contributions totaling $1200 and apply for other veteran scholarships and veterans' benefits. Eligibility for veterans' benefits does 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. The applicant contends the medical records verifies the applicant's PTSD screenings were positive. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation which supports a positive screening for PTSD. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 2 June 2016, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant provided a VA letter, dated 26 December 2017, which reflects the VA determined and granted the applicant service connection for an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression. The applicant contends having completed the requirements of a community college with a 3.785 overall GPA; having an educational goal to become a physical therapist, which requires obtaining a PhD and having been selected and served as the community college ambassador, which enabled the applicant to receive a scholarship for the tuition and books; and presently attending a Tennessee State University as a junior pursuing a medical degree, followed by applying for graduate school. 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 and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Anxiety Disorder, unspecified; Adjustment DO, unspecified. VA: Chronic Adjustment DO (30% SC). (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment DO and Anxiety Disorder, unspecified while in the military. The VA has established service connection (30%) for his diagnosis of Chronic Adjustment DO (CAD). (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, Chronic Adjustment Disorder (CAD). As there is an association between Chronic Adjustment DO and use of alcohol and/or illicit drugs to self-medicate, there is a nexus between his diagnosis of CAD and his wrongful use of MDMA. (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 discharge was inequitable because it was based an isolated incident in over 20 months of service with no other adverse action. The Board considered this contention and the applicant's assertion of an isolated incident; however, the Board determined the offenses were severe. Based upon applying liberal consideration and the medical mitigation, the Board voted to grant an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. (2) The applicant contends the discharge is improper because the dismissed civilian charges listed on enlistment documents was discussed in the discharge proceedings; the applicant was not allowed due process; and the separation authority did not have access to the letters by parent and grandparents, because they were never forwarded by the Legal office. 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 OBHI fully outweighing the applicant's basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends the discharge precluded the applicant from obtaining employment. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (4) The applicant contends the discharge precluded the applicant from obtaining educational scholarships and veterans' benefits, and an upgrade would provide scholarships for medical School and enable the applicant to obtain a refund of the Educational Contributions totaling $1200 and apply for other veteran scholarships and veterans' benefits. The Board considered this contention and 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. (5) The applicant contends the medical records verifies the applicant's PTSD screenings were positive. The Board reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Anxiety Disorder and Adjustment DO. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined there is an association between Chronic Adjustment DO and use of alcohol and/or illicit drugs to self- medicate. Therefore, the Board voted to grant an upgrade in the characterization of service to Honorable. (6) The applicant contends having completed the requirements of a community college with a 3.785 overall GPA; having an educational goal is to become a physical therapist, which requires obtaining a PhD and having been selected and served as the community college ambassador, which enabled the applicant to receive a scholarship for the tuition and books; and presently attending Tennessee State University as a junior pursuing a medical degree, followed by applying for graduate school. 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 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. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that an upgrade is warranted. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI 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 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. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's OBHI 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 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 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 AR20200005512 1