1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 3 October 2020 b. Date Received: 14 October 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 applicant was experiencing significant family problems, major depression, and discrimination which affected the ability to serve. The applicant was discharged for a single offense after years of faithful service, The applicant contends if the offense had occurred under current policies, the applicant would not have been discharged. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 15 November 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's diagnosis of ; MDD with additional diagnoses of Methamphetamine Use Disorder, Cannabis Use Disorder, Unspecified Personality Disorder (antisocial and narcissistic), Unspecified Mood Disorder, and Stimulant Induced Psychotic Disorder and PTSD secondary to MST mitigating the applicant's misconduct of drug abuse. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. Based on the applicant's medical diagnosis the Board determined the reentry code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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: 16 April 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 April 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant tested positive for marijuana on a unit urinalysis given on 13 October 2010. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 9 April 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 April 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 August 2006 / 4 years, 25 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 74D10, Chemical Operations Specialist / 3 years, 7 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, 22 January 2010, reflects the applicant wrongfully used marijuana between on or about 14 September 2009 and on or about 13 October 2009. The punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-1; forfeiture of $723 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provides a letter from the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), 22 September 2021, which reflects, in part, the applicant has a combined service-connected evaluation of 100-percent. The nature of the applicant's disability is not listed. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149, VA letters-2 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), dated 25 September 2019, 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, states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. (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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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, in effect, the applicant was experiencing significant family problems, major depression, and discrimination which affected the ability to serve. 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's AMHRR is void of a mental health diagnosis. The applicant provides a letter from VA, 22 September 2021, which reflects, in part, the applicant has a combined service-connected evaluation of 100-percent. The nature of the applicant's disability is not listed. The applicant contends, in effect, the misconduct was an isolated offense after years of faithful service. 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 Board will consider the applicant service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends if the offense had occurred under current policies, the applicant would not have been discharged. Based on the AMHRR, someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, "AR 635-200, PARA 14-12c (2)." The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge because of Misconduct (Serious Offense). Soldiers discharged due to Misconduct (Serious Offense), will be processed under the provisions AR 635-200, PARA 14-12c. Based on the AMHRR, it appears someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 26, Separation Code as "JKK." The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge because of Misconduct (Serious Offense). Soldiers discharged due to Misconduct (Serious Offense), will be processed under the provisions AR 635-200, PARA 14-12c, and will be assigned a Separation Code of "JKQ," per Army Regulation 635-5-1. Based on the AMHRR, someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation as "Misconduct (Drug Abuse)." The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c. Soldiers processed for misconduct under these provisions will be assigned a Narrative Reason for Separation as Misconduct (Serious Offense) 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: Post-service, the applicant is service connected for MDD with additional diagnoses of Methamphetamine Use Disorder, Cannabis Use Disorder, Unspecified Personality Disorder (antisocial and narcissistic), Unspecified Mood Disorder, and Stimulant Induced Psychotic Disorder. Recently, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD secondary to MST. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant has reported MST. (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. (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 MDD with additional diagnoses of Methamphetamine Use Disorder, Cannabis Use Disorder, Unspecified Personality Disorder (antisocial and narcissistic), Unspecified Mood Disorder, and Stimulant Induced Psychotic Disorder and PTSD secondary to MST outweighed the drug abuse basis for separation for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, the applicant was experiencing significant family problems, major depression, and discrimination which affected the ability to serve. The Board considered this contention and determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to the applicant's mitigating medical diagnosis. (2) The applicant contends the misconduct was an isolated offense after years of faithful service. The Board considered this contention and determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to the applicant's mitigating medical diagnosis. (3) The applicant contends if the offense had occurred under current policies, the applicant would not have been discharged. 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 medical diagnosis fully outweighing the applicant's drug abuse basis for separation. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's diagnosis of; MDD with additional diagnoses of Methamphetamine Use Disorder, Cannabis Use Disorder, Unspecified Personality Disorder (antisocial and narcissistic), Unspecified Mood Disorder, and Stimulant Induced Psychotic Disorder and PTSD secondary to MST mitigating the applicant's misconduct of drug abuse. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635- 200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. Based on the applicant's medical diagnosis the Board determined the reentry code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's MDD with additional diagnoses of Methamphetamine Use Disorder, Cannabis Use Disorder, Unspecified Personality Disorder (antisocial and narcissistic), Unspecified Mood Disorder, and Stimulant Induced Psychotic Disorder and PTSD secondary to MST mitigated the applicant's misconduct of drug abuse. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (1) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JFF. (2) The RE code will not change, as the Board determined the current RE code is appropriate based on the applicant's medical diagnosis. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Secretarial Authority / JFF d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200 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 AR20200009233 1