1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, conditions during active duty caused depression and stress, which affected the mental state and becoming a follower. The command did not provide help or support. The applicant was constantly taunted by fellow Soldiers and told of being a joke and less than a Soldier. The applicant struggled to fit in and wanted desperately to be part of the team. The help the applicant sought was overlooked and ignored. Having nowhere to turn caused the applicant to seek help from the wrong persons, which ultimately led to ending the career in the Army. The applicant was confined with no medication or support. The applicant could not sleep, eat, or function as a Soldier. The actions while on active duty did not represent the applicant's character. The applicant is currently receiving counseling. A psychiatrist has diagnosed the applicant's symptoms as PTSD with intermittent explosive disorder and is being treated with medication. The applicant was advised to seek daily therapy for having difficulty with thinking. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 17 March 2023, and by a 3 - 2 vote, the Board determined the characterization to be inequitable due to inadequate support from the chain of command for the applicant's rehabilitation (failure to enroll or support the applicant's self-referral to treatment). The applicant's characterization of service was changed to Honorable. 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 August 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 December 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between 20 June 2017 and 20 July 2017, the applicant wrongfully used marijuana. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 December 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 July 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 September 2016 / 3 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / some college / 90 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 92F10, H7 Petroleum Supply Specialist / 1 year, 10 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR The applicant's AMHRR, Commander's Report, reflects award of the NDSM, however, the award is not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Twelve Developmental Counseling Forms for various acts of misconduct. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 11 August 2017, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 330 (marijuana), during a Probable Cause (PO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 20 July 2017. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment form, dated 16 August 2017, reflects the applicant was referred in the ASAP by the command. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 September 2017, reflects the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative separation proceedings. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. There was no behavioral health diagnoses. Department of Defense Report of Result of Trial reflects the applicant was tried in a Summary Court-Martial on 13 July 2018. The applicant was charged with four Charges with its specifications. Summary of the Charges, pleas, and findings are as follows: Charge I: 13 Specifications of violating Article 86, Failure to report: Specification 1: On 1 June 2017; finding of guilty consistent with the plea; Specification 2: On 29 July 2017; finding of guilty, consistent with the plea; Specification 3: On 2 August 2017; finding of guilty, consistent with the plea; Specification 4: On 8 August 2017; finding of guilty consistent with the plea; Specification 5: On 15 September 2017; finding of guilty, consistent with the plea; Specification 6: On 10 January 2018; finding of guilty, consistent with the plea; Specification 7: On 11 January 2018, 0630 formation; finding of guilty consistent with the plea; Specification 8: On 11 January 2018, 0930 work call; finding of guilty, consistent with the plea; Specification 9: On 16 January 2018; finding of guilty, consistent with the plea; Specification 10: On 17 January 2018; finding of guilty consistent with the plea; Specification 11: On 19 January 2018; finding of guilty, consistent with the plea; Specification 12: On 29 January 2018; finding of guilty, consistent with the plea; and Specification 13: On 2 February 2018; finding of guilty consistent with the plea. Charge II: Two Specifications of violating Article 91, being disrespectful to an NCO: Specification 1: On 8 August 2017; finding of guilty consistent with the plea; and Specification 2: On 24 May 2017; finding of guilty, consistent with the plea. Charge III: Two Specifications of violating Article 107, making false official statements: Specification 1: On 2 August 2017; finding of guilty consistent with the plea; and Specification 2: On 1 June 2017; finding of guilty, consistent with the plea. Charge IV: Five Specifications of violating Article 112a: Specification 1: Between 14 July and 14 August 2017, wrongful use of marijuana; finding of guilty consistent with the plea; Specification 2: Between 27 August and 27 September 2017, wrongful use of marijuana; finding of guilty, consistent with the plea; Specification 3: Between 24 and 27 September 2017, wrongful use of cocaine; finding of guilty consistent with the plea; Specification 4: Between 14 November and 14 December 2017, wrongful use of marijuana; finding of guilty, consistent with the plea; and Specification 5: Between 11 December 2017 and 11 January 2017(sic), wrongful use of marijuana; finding of guilty consistent with the plea. Sentence: Reduction to E-1; Forfeiture $1,092 pay; and, restriction and confinement for 22 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical History, dated 30 August 2017, the applicant noted too many behavioral health issues to list, and the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: The applicant was referred to behavioral health for stress. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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) 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 Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends a psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant's behavioral health symptoms as PTSD with intermittent explosive disorder and is being treated with medication and is receiving counseling. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 6 September 2017, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The AMHRR also contains a Report of Medical History, dated 30 August 2017, which indicates the applicant noted receiving counseling for numerous issues to list, and the medical examiner noted the applicant being referred to the community behavioral health for stress. The applicant contends harassment by fellow members while on active duty. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant contends the command did not provide help or support and the help sought was overlooked and ignored. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling and a referral to the Army Substance Abuse Program. 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: Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and the applicant asserts PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant's Adjustment DO with anxiety and asserted PTSD existed during the applicant's military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant's Adjustment DO with anxiety does not mitigate the applicant's drug abuse because Adjustment DO with anxiety is typically mild, short-lived and not associated with the use of alcohol or drugs to self- medicate its symptoms. The Board Medical Advisor also opined that the applicant's self- asserted PTSD does not mitigate the applicant's drug use because, while PTSD can mitigate drug use as there is a nexus between PTSD and self-medication, the applicant did not provide any medical records supporting a PTSD diagnosis by a qualified medical provider. Further, while the applicant's VA health records diagnose the applicant with several behavioral conditions other than PTSD, the VA records do not link these behavioral health conditions to the applicant's military service. Therefore, the applicant's Adjustment DO with anxiety and asserted PTSD do not mitigate the applicant's drug use. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor's opine, the Board determined that the applicant's Adjustment DO with anxiety does not outweigh the applicant's medically unmitigated drug use. The Board's Medical Advisor after a review of the applicant's DOD medical records opined the applicant's command was negligent in not following SUDCC recommendations. The applicant even indicated on several occasions wanting treatment for addictions. The command's lack of support in allowing substance abuse treatment more likely than not contributed to a worsening drug addiction and consequent homelessness and joblessness; it also likely contributed to development of serious mental illness. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the command did not provide help or support and the help sought was overlooked and ignored. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's discharge is inequitable based on the Board's Medical Advisor opine concluding that the applicant's Command was negligent when the Command failed to authorize the applicant's enrollment in SUDCC against the SUDCC recommendation and that this failure more likely than not contributed to the applicant's worsening drug addiction and consequent homelessness and joblessness. The Board found that the Command's failure outweighed the applicant's drug use. Therefore, the Board voted to upgrade the applicant's discharge to Honorable. (2) The applicant contends a psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant's behavioral health symptoms as PTSD with intermittent explosive disorder and is being treated with medication and receiving counseling. The Board liberally considered this contention, however, did not make a determination as the Board already voted to upgrade to Honorable as referenced in paragraph 9b(1) above. (3) The applicant contends harassment by fellow members while on active duty. The Board considered this contention, however, the Board did not make a determination as the Board already voted to upgrade to Honorable as referenced in paragraph 9b(1) above. c. The Board determined the discharge to be inequitable due to inadequate support for the applicant's rehabilitation (failure to enroll or support the applicant's self-referral to treatment). d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization to Honorable because the Board determined that the applicant's Command was negligent when the applicant's Command failed to authorize the applicant's enrollment in SUDCC against the SUDCC recommendation and the Command's failure to authorize treatment more likely than not contributed to the applicant's worsening drug addiction and consequent homelessness and joblessness. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code as the reason that the applicant was discharge was for drug use, which was not mitigated. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable. c. Change Reason / SPD code to: No Change. d. Change RE Code to: No Change. e. Change Authority to: No Change. Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20200006820 1