1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 March 2020 b. Date Received: 31 March 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 conditions. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant suffered from an undiagnosed/ untreated Traumatic Brain Injury while in the service. The applicant has now been diagnosed. The applicant was discharged for reasons relating to this condition. The applicant's discharge was inequitable because it is not consistent with the policies and traditions of the Army, and it was based on one isolated incident in 33 months with no other adverse action. The applicant tested positive for cocaine during a routine urinalysis after taking emergency leave due to applicant's grandfather's death. The applicant deeply regrets this mistake made while home on leave. It has made a huge impact on the applicant's military career and future. Since discharge, the applicant has had continuous employment and has become a small business owner. The applicant also is a very active member of the local community with emphasis on involvement in Veterans Services. The applicant is the assistant football coach for Rock Hill High School Junior Varsity Football Team, belongs to a kayaking group which is a Veterans organization and is the president of Emerald Lake Home-Owners Association Chair of A.L.L. Outdoors. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 26 April 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was inequitable based on the applicant's the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury mitigating the applicant's drug abuse basis of separation. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable, 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: 9 December 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 October 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for wrongfully using cocaine. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 21 October 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 November 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 February 2008 / 5 years, 17 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 9 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (3 March 2009 - 1 March 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD 264, dated 30 July 2010, reflects applicant tested positive for COC 109 during an inspection random (IR) unit urinalysis conducted on 20 July 2010. CID Report of Investigation - Initial Final, dated 6 August 2010, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Possession of Cocaine and Wrongful Use of Cocaine when he submitted a urine specimen on 20 July 2010 during a unit urinalysis inspection, which subsequently tested positive for Cocaine. FG Article 15, dated 25 August 2010, for wrongfully using cocaine (between 19 and 22 July 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $723.00 pay per month for two months, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 11 February 2011; extra duty for 45 days; and restriction to the limits of Fort Richardson and Elmendorf Air Force Base, for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 1 September 2010, reflects the applicant had a history of possible concussion but was mentally responsible was clear thinking and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by command. The applicant provided a Department of Veterans Affairs decision letter, showing the applicant was rated at 10 percent disability for Traumatic Brain Injury. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; Department of VA decision letter; copies of military personnel records; five third-party letters; DD Form 214; Transunion Credit Report; ERB. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has had continuous employment since discharge and has become a small business owner. The applicant also is a very active member of his local community with emphasis on involvement in Veterans Services. He is the assistant football coach for Rock Hill High School Junior Varsity Football Team, belongs to a kayaking group which is a Veterans organization and is the president of Emerald Lake Homeowners Association Chair of A.L.L. Outdoors. 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. 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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends he suffered from TBI while in the service which was related to the reason he was discharged. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service history of possible concussion. The record shows the applicant underwent a behavioral health evaluation (BHE) on 1 September 2010, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The applicant also provided a Department of Veterans Affairs decision letter, showing the applicant was rated at 10 percent disability for Traumatic Brain Injury. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, 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 good service, including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends continuous employment since discharge and has become a small business owner. The applicant also is a very active member of his local community with emphasis on involvement in Veterans Services. He is the assistant football coach for Rock Hill High School Junior Varsity Football Team, belongs to a kayaking group which is a Veterans organization and is the president of Emerald Lake Homeowners Association Chair of A.L.L. Outdoors. 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 diagnosis: The applicant is post-service connected for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant is service-connected for PTSD and TBI. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between trauma and substance use, the basis for separation is mitigated by the service- connected PTSD and TBI. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD and TBI outweighed the drug abuse basis for separation for the aforementioned reason. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends he suffered from TBI while in the service which was related to the reason he was discharged. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that the applicant's PTSD and TBI outweighed the drug abuse basis for separation due to the nexus between trauma and substance use. Therefore, an upgrade is warranted. (2) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. 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 and TBI fully outweighing the applicant's drug abuse basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. 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 and TBI fully outweighing the applicant's drug abuse basis for separation. (4) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. 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 and TBI fully outweighing the applicant's drug abuse basis for separation. (5) The applicant contends continuous employment since discharge and has become a small business owner. The applicant also is a very active member of his local community with emphasis on involvement in Veterans Services. He is the assistant football coach for Rock Hill High School Junior Varsity Football Team, belongs to a kayaking group which is a Veterans organization and is the president of Emerald Lake Home Owners Association Chair of A.L.L. Outdoors. 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 and TBI fully outweighing the applicant's drug abuse basis for separation. c. The Board determined that the discharge was inequitable based on the applicant's the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder mitigating the applicant's drug abuse basis of separation. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable, 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 PTSD and TBI 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 AR20200006537 1