1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 18 June 2020 b. Date Received: 30 June 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant’s time in the service is not being represented correctly. The applicant was quickly promoted through the ranks and received three Army Achievement Medals. While in the Army, the applicant suffered from a lot of depression because the applicant drank a lot. Drinking and the infantry are synonymous, it was a sort of rite of passage. The applicant did not feel forced to drink, the applicant just found a home in that ideology. Drinking caused the applicant to develop depression and was sent to rehabilitation twice. The applicant continued with staying motivated while attending the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) meetings and groups. While in the field, the only thing the applicant could think of was drinking again. Garrison life began to take its toll on the applicant beginning in 2016 due to layouts, paperwork, and toxic leadership. The applicant’s second stint with rehabilitation in 2016 broke the applicant, it was not a great experience. The applicant’s ASAP counselors tried to recommend the applicant for separation from the Army because of how hard it was for the applicant to adjust to change while having to deal with depression. The applicant stayed out of trouble but was miserable not to be getting out of the Army. The applicant’s ultimate downfall came when in a moment of bad decision making and anxious behavior, the applicant and wife decided to smoke marijuana. Like clockwork, the applicant got a call the next morning for a unit urinalysis. The applicant tested positive and received a Field Grade Article 15, was reduced from E-4 to E-1, had 45 days extra duty and 45 days reduced pay. The applicant would like the character of service changed because the applicant has suffered enough from the mistake that was made and because the applicant only receives 70 percent of the GI Bill. The GI Bill assisted the applicant in completing an associate degree in the winter of 2020 and the applicant is continuing education at the University of Washington Tacoma. The applicant’s narrative reason for discharge is characterized as drug abuse, however failing a drug test for marijuana should not count as drug abuse. 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 05 July 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 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: 6 April 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 March 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant wrongfully used marijuana between on or about 20 September 2016 and 20 October 2016. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 March 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 July 2015 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / High School Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 10 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 14 May 2013-30 June 2015 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-3, AGCM, NDSM, GWTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated NIF, for NIF. 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. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 4 November 2016, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 36 (marijuana), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 20 October 2016. Law Enforcement Report – Initial - Final, dated 23 November 2016, reflects an investigation established the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Use of Marijuana. The ASAP Coordinator informed the Criminal Investigation Command that the applicant tested positive for marijuana on a unit urinalysis inspection conducted on 20 October 2016. Trial Counsel opined probable cause existed to believe the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Use of Marijuana. No additional investigative efforts were required. The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief, dated 10 April 2019, reflects the applicant was flagged for involuntary separation/field initiated (BA), effective 11 October 2016 and drug abuse adverse action (UA), effective 8 November 2016; was ineligible for reenlistment due to pending separation (9V). The Assignment Eligibility Availability (AEA) code reflects AEA code “L” which has no assignment restrictions. The applicant was reduced from E-4 to E-1 effective 15 December 2016. FLAGS / AEA codes: BA, UA / L RE/Prohibition code: 9V i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Veterans Affairs (VA) Disability rating decision reflects the applicant was rated 50 percent disability for major depressive disorder with alcohol use disorder effective 7 April 2017. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 11 January 2017, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could 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 post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence and adjustment disorder with depressed mood, acute and had follow up appointments with Substance Use Disorder Clinical Care and Embedded Behavioral Health. The applicant denied significant medical conditions. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; self-authored statement; VA disability rating decision. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant completed an associate degree in the winter of 2020 and is continuing education at the University of Washington Tacoma. 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. 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, 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, in effect, the applicant’s time in the service is not being represented correctly. The applicant was quickly promoted through the ranks and received three Army Achievement Medals. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28 The applicant contends, in effect, while in the Army, the applicant suffered from a lot of depression because the applicant drank a lot. The applicant provided a VA disability rating decision reflecting the applicant was rated 50 percent disability for major depressive disorder with alcohol use disorder effective 7 April 2017. The record shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 11 January 2017, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence and adjustment disorder with depressed mood, acute. The applicant contends, in effect, an upgrade would increase the 70 percent of the GI Bill that the applicant is receiving. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill 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. 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: Major Depressive Disorder and Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, secondary to discharge process, with likely Personality Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant did not hold a known behavioral health condition prior to the misconduct serving as the basis for separation which was only the final act of misconduct originating in 2014. Moreover, the applicant and both in- and post-service providers, including the basis for his service-connected condition, indicate the primary issue was alcohol and drug use with secondary behavioral health issues. Accordingly, it is more likely than not, the applicant’s misconduct was related to a pattern of substance use since the age of 16 that continued in-service with no desire to discontinue. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that neither of the applicant’s service connected BH conditions of Adjustment Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder outweighed the misconduct - wrongful used of marijuana that was the basis for applicant’s separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change. The board considered this contention during proceedings and determined that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged, because the applicant in-service and post-service providers medical opine indicate that even though the applicant held in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, the applicant did not hold a known behavioral health condition prior to the misconduct of wrongful used of marijuana. Therefore, based on the applicant’s documented history of drug use and non-BH mitigation of the misconduct the board voted not to change the current characterization and narrative reason. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant’s time in the service is not being represented correctly. The board considered this contention during proceedings and determined that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged as outlined above in paragraph 9a (3) of this document. The applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. (3) The applicant contends, in effect, an upgrade would increase the 70 percent of the GI Bill that the applicant is receiving. The Board determined that due to the serious and repeated misconduct, a discharge upgrade is not appropriate as outlined above in paragraph 9a (3), (4) and 9b (1) of this document. Furthermore, 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, because the criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the Army when determining a member’s discharge characterization. (4) The applicant contends, in effect, while in the Army, the applicant suffered from a lot of depression because the applicant drank a lot. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s behavioral health conditions did not contribute to the applicant’s misconduct as outlined above in paragraph 9a (3) and 9b (1) of this document. Also, a review of the documents submitted reflects the applicant underwent a MSE and was sent to rehabilitation twice. In light of the current evidence of record, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate and no change is warranted at this time. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, it was proper and equitable after weighing all the evidence, including the applicant’s misconduct - wrongful used of marijuana that was the basis for applicant’s separation. The Board also found that 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 under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (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: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change 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 AR20200008106 1