1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 October 2020 b. Date Received: 23 October 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: 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, he tested positive for marijuana and was never offered any rehabilitation avenues nor were any disciplinary notices given. Approximately six months later, he began experiencing financial hardship which affected his military service. The applicant also contends he requested to do his training in advance due to his work schedule but his request was never addressed. He was discharged for alcohol and related substance abuse without his knowledge and without notice. The applicant further contends others received less punishment for more serious infractions. The applicant states there was no prior serious infractions to warrant his extreme punishment. In a personal appearance conducted on 19 July 2021, and by a 3-2 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: Alcohol or Other Drug Abuse / NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-35i / NA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 July 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 March 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant tested positive for THC/49during a monthly 10-percent urinalysis. (3) Recommended Characterization: General, under honorable conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 9 March 2017, the applicant waived his right to consult with legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 November 2013 / 8 years (ARNG) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / NIF / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M, Motor Transport Operator / 3 years, 8 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 11 February 2014 - 19 June 2015 / HD (IADT) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR, Driver and Mechanic Badge-Driver-Wheeled Vehicle(s) Clasp g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: On 7 February 2017, the applicant's commander was informed that the applicant had tested positive for THC on 3 December 2016. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, Privacy Release Statement, 3 Letters of Support, Letter to Congressman Horford from ARBA 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. National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, establishes standards, policies, and procedures for the management of the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) enlisted Soldiers in the functional areas of: Classification and Reclassification; Personnel Management; Assignment and Transfer, including interstate transfer; Special Duty Assignment Pay; Enlisted Separations; and, Command Sergeant Major Program. Chapter 6 sets the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted Soldiers from the ARNG/ARNGUS. Paragraph 6-35i defers to AR 135-178, chapter 12. e. Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the United States Army Reserve. (1) Chapter 12 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, and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (2) Paragraph 12-1d, 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 12-1a or 12-1b as appropriate. (3) Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge may be granted. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change. The record confirms the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of the service was not consistent with the Army National Guard's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the ARNG, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the misconduct (drug abuse), the applicant diminished the quality of the service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the special trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the ARNG's drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career that ultimately caused his discharge from the ARNG. The applicant contends he was discharged for alcohol and related substance abuse and he was never offered any rehabilitation avenues nor were any disciplinary notices given. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. Further, Army Regulation 600-85, paragraph 3-8 entitled self-referrals, states the applicant could have self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance. The applicant also contends he requested to do his training in advance due to his work schedule but his request was never addressed. He was discharged without his knowledge and with no notice. The record shows the applicant's commander informed the applicant of his action to separate the applicant for abuse of illegal drugs on 4 March 2017. Further, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action for separation and waived his right to consult with counsel. The applicant further contends others received less punishment for more serious infractions. The method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. The applicant goes on to contend there was no prior serious infractions to warrant his extreme punishment. The applicant's contentions about his punishment was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs, which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. 9. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): On 19 July 2021, the morning of the hearing, the applicant submitted the following additional seven documents: a 1-page email to his unit dated 22 February 2017, a 1-page email to his unit dated 27 March 2017, a 2-page email to his unit dated 20 April 2017, a 5-page request for upgrade dated July 2017, a 1-page character statement from PFC D W dated 25 April 2020, a 1-page character statement from SPC C W dated 4 May 2020, and a 1-page character statement from the applicant's brother, SSG J U - that were added to the case file and considered by the Board. b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): Applicant and witnesses provided oral argument and statements in support of the contentions provided in written submissions and in support of previously submitted documentary evidence. c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): 10. 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? (NO) The Board's BH Doctor reviewed all available medical records and found no BH diagnoses on the applicant. The applicant provided no documents that, when applying liberal consideration, convinced the Board of a possible mitigating BH condition. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? (N/A) (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? (N/A) (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? (N/A) b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends he was discharged for alcohol and related substance abuse and he was never offered any rehabilitation avenues nor were any disciplinary notices given. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. Further, Army Regulation 600-85, paragraph 3-8 entitled self-referrals, states the applicant could have self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance. (2) The applicant also contends he requested to do his training in advance due to his work schedule but his request was never addressed. He was discharged without his knowledge and with no notice. The record shows the applicant's commander informed the applicant of his action to separate the applicant for abuse of illegal drugs on 4 March 2017. Further, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action for separation and waived his right to consult with counsel. (3) The applicant further contends others received less punishment for more serious infractions. The method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. (4) The applicant goes on to contend there was no prior serious infractions to warrant his extreme punishment. The applicant's contentions about his punishment were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs, which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. c. The Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. The majority of the Board determined that the documentation contained in the AMHRR, as well as evidence submitted by the applicant, did not support a finding that the applicant's discharge was improper or inequitable. 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, despite applying liberal consideration, there were no BH diagnoses which mitigated the misconduct and 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 because, despite applying liberal consideration, there were no BH diagnoses which mitigated the misconduct and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) Because the characterization and reason were not changed, the SPD/RE codes will not change. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change Authenticating Official: 7/23/2021 Presiding Officer, COL, U.S. ARMY Army Discharge Review Board Signed by: COLBERT.ROLANDA.DELRESA.1064869872 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 NA - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Reentry 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