1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, applicant finally was diagnosed and treated for bipolar disorder after applicant's discharge through the VA. The applicant tried to receive treatment while in the service, but applicant's command was against it and applicant was urged to go through ASAP, even though applicant had no alcohol related incidents. The applicant was given the impression from command that applicant needed to be cleared of any problems, but due to applicant's security clearance, a mental diagnosis would adversely affect applicant's job. This led the applicant to self-medicate. The applicant did not have an official diagnosis; therefore, was able to maintain applicant's clearance and job. The applicant was a dedicated Soldier and gave all applicant had to the Army. The applicant believes applicant was thrown away because applicant was a problem to the command that command did not want to solve. In a records review conducted on 22 March 2022, and by a 4-1 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: Drug Rehabilitation Failure / AR 635-200, Chapter 9 / JPC / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 29 June 2009 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: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 August 2006 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / Associate's Degree / 124 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 25S10, SATCOM System Operator-Maintainer / 2 years, 11 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Meade, MD, Orders 169-0002, dated 18 June 2009, reflects the applicant was reassigned to the Army Transition Point for discharge from the Regular Army on 29 June 2009. DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 9, by reason of Drug Rehabilitation Failure, with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a VA Problem List, dated 14 December 2011, reflecting Bipolar I Disorder, most recent episode (or current) manic, unspecified, entered on 9 November 2011. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; VA Problem List; two copies of DD Form 214 (Member-1 and Service-2 copies). 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 600-85 defines the Limited Use Policy and states unless waived under the circumstances listed in paragraph 10-13d, Limited Use Policy prohibits the use by the government of protected evidence against a Soldier in actions under the UCMJ or on the issue of characterization of service in administrative proceedings. Additionally, the policy limits the characterization of discharge to "Honorable" if protected evidence is used. Protected evidence under this policy is limited to: Results of command-directed drug or alcohol testing that are inadmissible le under the MRE; Results of a drug or alcohol test collected solely as part of a safety mishap investigation undertaken for accident analysis and the development of countermeasures; Information concerning drug or alcohol abuse or possession of drugs incidental to personal use, including the results of a drug or alcohol test, collected as a result of a Soldier's emergency medical care solely for an actual or possible alcohol or other drug overdose; A Soldier's self-referral to BH for SUD treatment; Admissions and other information concerning alcohol or other drug abuse or possession of drugs incidental to personal use occurring prior to the date of initial referral to treatment and provided by Soldiers as part of their initial entry into SUD treatment; Drug or alcohol test results, if the Soldier voluntarily submits to a DoD or Army SUD treatment before the Soldier has received an order to submit for a lawful drug or alcohol test; and, the results of a drug or alcohol test administered solely as a required part of a DoD or Army SUD treatment program. e. 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 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. (5) Paragraph 9-4, stipulates the service of Soldiers discharged under this section will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required. An honorable discharge is mandated in any case in which the Government initially introduces into the final discharge process limited use evidence as defined by AR 600-85. f. 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 "JPC" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for drug rehabilitation failure. g. 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 waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-4 applies to a person separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable 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 of 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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. The applicant's AMHRR 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 9, by reason of Drug Rehabilitation Failure, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends being diagnosed with Bipolar I Disorder by the VA. The applicant provided VA medical documents indicating he was diagnosed with Bipolar I Disorder. The applicant's AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends applicant self-medicated because applicant was given the impression by the command applicant would lose the security clearance and job if applicant sought assistance for applicant's disorder. Army Regulation 600-85, paragraph 7-3 entitled voluntary (self) identification and referral, states voluntary (self) ID is the most desirable method of identifying substance use disorder. The individual whose performance, social conduct, interpersonal relations, or health becomes impaired because of these problems has the personal obligation to seek help. Soldiers seeking self-referral for problematic substance use may access services through BH services for a SUD evaluation. The Limited Use Policy exists to encourage Soldiers to proactively seek help. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. 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 DoD and VA medical records, applicant submissions and third party statements, and found the applicant was diagnosed with Amphetamine Abuse, Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Concussive Syndrome, Stress related Physiological Affect physical condition (that mimics Bipolar Disorder), ADHD, Bipolar I Disorder, and Depressive Disorder NOS, which, in the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, could potentially mitigate a discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant was diagnosed in-service with Amphetamine Abuse and Stress related Physiological Affect physical condition. Applicant has post-service diagnosis for BH disorders of ADHD, Bipolar I Disorder, Depressive Disorder NOS, Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Concussive Syndrome that are not service-connected. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor, even with liberal consideration of all the evidence, opined applicant's Amphetamine Abuse and Stress related Physiological Affect physical condition, does not mitigate applicant's rehabilitation failure that was the basis for applicant's separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant's medical conditions outweighed the basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being diagnosed with Bipolar I Disorder by the VA. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant's time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member's discharge characterization. In this case, the Board liberally considered this contention, but determined that the applicant's Bipolar I Disorder was not service connected, and therefore could not mitigate the rehabilitation failure that was the basis for applicant's separation. (2) The applicant contends applicant self-medicated because applicant was given the impression by the command that applicant would lose the security clearance and job if applicant sought assistance for applicant's BH disorder. The Board determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with command disputes. There is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued or any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command, therefore, the Board concluded that this contention did not warrant any change to the discharge. (3) The applicant contends good service. The Board determined the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant's service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By drug rehabilitation failure, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 majority of the Board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant's wrongful drug usage led to applicant's Amphetamine Abuse and Stress related Physiological Affect physical condition that could mimic Bipolar Disorder, but did not excuse or mitigate the drug rehabilitation failure that was the basis for applicant's separation, and the discharge was both proper and equitable. A minority of the Board voted to upgrade the discharge characterization as inequitable because applicant's Bipolar I Disorder may have first appeared during applicant's military service since applicant's in-service drug usage may have led to applicant actually having, not just mimicking Bipolar I Disorder during applicant's military service. 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 SECRETARILA REVIEWING AUTHORITY: While the Board majority found your separation both proper and equitable, as the Secretarial Reviewing Authority, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) reviewed the findings, conclusions, and the board's recommendation under the authority of Title 10 United States Code Section 1553(b) and the Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 (Discharge Review Board (DRB) Procedures and Standards), enclosure E3.7.1.1.1. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) found sufficient evidence to upgrade your characterization of service to Honorable and to change the separation authority to Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, chapter 14-12a the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation designator (SPD) to JKN. Therefore, your DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) will be corrected by issuing you a new DD Form 214 with the updated information. ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210000151 1