1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 April 2020 b. Date Received: 23 June 2020 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant's Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests, through counsel, an upgrade to honorable, along with a narrative reason and reentry (RE) code change. The applicant's counsel also requests copies of pre-decisional documents. The applicant's counsel seeks relief contending, in effect the applicant's overall character of service was honorable and it is inequitable not to change the discharge status to reflect the full record of loyal service. The applicant's counsel contends a deployment-related mental health condition (post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)) and other extenuating circumstances mitigated the misconduct which led to the discharge and the applicant's post service record is exceptional and demonstrates the applicant's misconduct was an aberration and the discharge is inequitable. The applicant's counsel contends the applicant struggled after redeployment, especially after the applicant's spouse left and the applicant was diagnosed with cancer, which ultimately led to the involuntary discharge. The applicant's counsel contends the applicant made a poor decision to help some other Solders purchase cocaine. The applicant did not use the drug nor did the applicant make any money for helping the other Soldiers. The applicant's counsel states the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) has determined the applicant's service for the period under review is honorable and has granted the applicant a 100-percent service- connected disability rating. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 25 August 2023, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, mitigating the applicant's purchase and distribution of illegal drugs. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to General and changed to the separation authority to AR 635- 200, paragraph 14-12a, 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 19 February 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 February 2015 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 29 / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 68R10, Veterinary Food Inspector / 11 years, 3 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: 9 November 2004 - 10 February 2015 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (25 May 2011 - 17 May 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS-2, ARCOM, AAM-3, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL, COA-4 g. Performance Ratings: 1 December 2011 - 15 June 2012 / Fully Capable 16 June 2012 - 15 June 2013 / Marginal 16 June 2013 / 14 May 2014 / Fully Capable 15 May 2014 - 27 July 2015 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provides a letter from VA, dated 16 January 2020, which reflects, in part, the applicant was granted a 70-percent service- connected disability rating for PTSD (claimed as PTSD/Depression and sleep disorder). (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, Legal Brief with 16 exhibits (218 total pages). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has been law-abiding citizen, has pursued a college degree, and had been a full-time parent. 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) 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. 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 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). 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-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 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, through counsel, an upgrade to honorable, along with a narrative reason and RE code change. The applicant's counsel also requests copies of pre-decisional documents. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's service AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. The applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature). The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14-12c, by reason Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The applicant's counsel requests the applicant's narrative reason for the discharge be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this chapter is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)" and the separation code is "JKQ." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents governs the 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, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason or authority to be entered under this regulation. The applicant's counsel requests the applicant's RE code be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-22, Chapter 10, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge and a RE code of "4." Army Regulation 601-210 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. 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. The applicant's counsel contends the applicant's overall character of service was honorable and it is inequitable not to change the discharge status to reflect the full record of loyal service. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28 The applicant's counsel contends a deployment-related mental health condition (PTSD), and other extenuating circumstances mitigate the misconduct which led to the discharge. The applicant's AMHRR is void of a PTSD or any mental health diagnosis. The applicant provides a letter from VA, dated 16 January 2020, which reflects, in part, the applicant was granted a 70- percent service-connected disability rating for PTSD (claimed as PTSD/Depression and sleep disorder). The applicant's counsel contends the applicant's post service record is exceptional and demonstrates the applicant's misconduct was an aberration and the discharge is inequitable. 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. The applicant's counsel contends the applicant struggled after redeployment, especially after the applicant's spouse left and the applicant was diagnosed with cancer, which ultimately led to the involuntary discharge. The applicant's AMHRR reflects the applicant was separated under the provisions of AR 65-200, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The applicant's counsel contends the applicant made a poor decision to help some other Solders purchase cocaine. The applicant did not use the drug nor did the applicant make any money for helping the other Soldiers. The applicant's counsel states VA. has determined the applicant's service for the period under review is honorable and has granted the applicant a 100-percent service-connected disability rating. The applicant provided a VA letter, dated 8 August 2019, which reflects the VA determined the period of service from 11 February 2015 to 19 February 2016, as honorable. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than used by the Army when determining a member's discharge If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it is his/her responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. In reference to counsel's request for pre-decisional documents, it is not the practice of the Army Review Boards Agency to provide pre-decisional documents prior to adjudication. Once the case has been adjudicated, the applicant and counsel will be provided a copy of the final decision. 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: The applicant was diagnosed in-service with an Adjustment Disorder related to anger and marital difficulties. The applicant is service connected for combat related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed in-service with an Adjustment Disorder related to anger and marital difficulties. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there is not a nexus between trauma and making a conscious choice to purchase drugs for another individual. The misconduct requires forethought, planning, and execution of multiple steps over time which does not align with impaired cognitive processes. (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 the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the applicant's purchase and distribution of illegal drugs. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the applicant's overall character of service was honorable and it is inequitable not to change the discharge status to reflect the full record of loyal service. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's service record, to include applicant's combat service, does mitigate the applicant's misconduct to a degree. The Board found that the mitigation offered by the applicant's service was sufficient to warrant upgrade to General characterization of service. (2) The applicant contends a deployment-related mental health condition (PTSD), and other extenuating circumstances mitigate the misconduct which led to the discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the applicant's purchase and distribution of illegal drugs. (3) The applicant contends the applicant's post service record is exceptional and demonstrates the applicant's misconduct was an aberration and the discharge is inequitable. The Board considered this contention but determined that the applicant's post-service accomplishments were not of a level to warrant further upgrade from General characterization of service. (4) The applicant contends the applicant struggled after redeployment, especially after the applicant's spouse left and the applicant was diagnosed with cancer, which ultimately led to the involuntary discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the applicant's purchase and distribution of illegal drugs. (5) The applicant contends the applicant made a poor decision to help some other Soldiers purchase cocaine. The applicant did not use the drug nor did the applicant make any money for helping the other Soldiers. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's isolated misconduct does outweigh the Serious Offense narrative reason for discharge. Therefore, an upgrade to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) narrative reason is warranted. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, mitigating the applicant's purchase and distribution of illegal drugs. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to General and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to General because the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, mitigated the applicant's purchase and distribution of illegal drugs. 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 RE code will change to RE-3. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: RE-3 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 AR20200009846 1