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: 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, not wanting the discharge to hinder the applicant's future. The applicant had a difficult time in service, but served honorably. The applicant was proud to serve and would serve again if the applicant could. The applicant's experience in the service was undesirable because the applicant lost friends who were Soldiers. The applicant made mistakes while coping with the loss and the chain of command did not appropriately handle the situation or help the applicant. Although the applicant did not deploy, the applicant served at a time when deployment was possible. The applicant served the country and just wants the service to be recognized and appreciated. The applicant has plans to return to school. The applicant lost brothers who did not get the opportunity the applicant has to become a better person for the family, the brothers, and in life. The applicant requests consideration for a veteran who has changed for a better life. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 25 August 2023, and by a 3-2 vote the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's MDD outweighed the basis for separation - Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code, and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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 Rehabilitation Failure / AR 635-200, Chapter 9 / JPD / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 27 February 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 December 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 12 February 2014, the applicant was enrolled into the Alcohol Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), after having an alcohol related incident. The applicant was deemed an ASAP failure on 3 November 2014, because the applicant was involved in another alcohol related incident within 12 months of completing ASAP. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 30 December 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 January 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 July 2013 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 87 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 1 year, 7 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment form, 19 February 2014, reflects the applicant was command-referred in the ASAP because of hangovers on the job and improper use of drugs. The attached Chronological Record of Medical Care, undated, reflects ASAP recommended the applicant for Level I Outpatient Treatment for a minimum of 12 weekly sessions and referred the applicant to the Behavioral Health Clinic. The recommendation was endorsed by the applicant and the applicant's immediate commander. Company Grade Article 15, 12 March 2014, for assaulting Private First Class (PFC) M. G. by striking PFC M. G. with the fist in the face (17 February 2014) and as a result of wrongful previous overindulgence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, incapacitated for the proper performance of duties (10 January 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; extra duty for 14 days; and an oral reprimand. Patient Progress Report (PPR), 2 April 2014, reflects the applicant was released from the program because of successful completion. Military Police Report, 29 May 2014, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: conduct unbecoming a member of the military service - drunk and disorderly, under Article 134 UCMJ (on post), when the Fort Wainwright Police were notified of a noise complaint. Investigation revealed the applicant was playing loud music in the barracks room when another soldier knocked on the applicant's door, the applicant turned the music up. The applicant was being uncooperative with law enforcement and was apprehended and transported to the police station the applicant submitted a portable breath test, which resulted in a breath alcohol content (BRAC) of 0.236 percent. Two Receipts for Pre-Trial/Post-Trial Prisoner or Detained Person, 29 May 2014, and 21 October 2014, reflect the applicant was detained for being drunk and disorderly and a curfew violation. Military Police Report, 21 October 2014, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: curfew violation under Article 92, UCMJ (on post). Alcohol Incident Report, 21 October 2014, reflects the applicant was administered a BRAC test, which resulted in .233 percent. Seven Developmental Counseling Forms, for, but not limited to: Drunk and disorderly and violating a direct order from the commander, not to consume alcohol; Urinating in the barracks room; Failure to follow guidance on the squadron commander's sign in / out program; Alcohol related incident; BRAC of .236 percent; Drunk on Duty; and Missing Movement. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center letter, 1 July 2015, reflecting the applicant has been participating in the Snyder house, Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Program (RRTP) since 13 March 2015, to address substance use disorder and depression, both related to military service. The psychologist supports the applicant's discharge being upgraded to honorable based on the incredible progress the applicant has been making in treatment. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical Examination, 15 October 2014, the examining medical physician noted in the summary of defects and diagnosis section: Depression/anxiety. Army substance abuse program record review (memo), 3 November 2014, reflects the applicant was command-referred to ASAP on 16 September 2014. The applicant was evaluated on 23 September 2014, and diagnosed with alcohol dependence. The rehabilitation team met on 24 September 2014 and determined the applicant would benefit from weekly ASAP outpatient treatment. On 22 October 2014, the applicant relapsed by being involved in another alcohol related incident. The rehabilitation team declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure in accordance with Army Regulation 600-85. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; and VA Medical Center letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has taken an active role in the treatment for substance abuse and depression and has made incredible progress in the treatment. 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 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 which the Government initially introduces into the final discharge process limited use evidence as defined by AR 600-85. 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 "JPD" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure. 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. The evidence of Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) indicates on 22 October 2014, the applicant relapsed and was involved in another alcohol related incident, which was in violation AR 600-85 to engage in substance use while enrolled in ASAP, constituting treatment failure. The unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. The applicant contends suffering from substance use disorder and depression during military service. The applicant provided medical documents reflecting the VA treated the applicant for substance use disorder and depression and indicated both were related to military service. The applicant's AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a medical examination on 15 October 2015, which indicates the applicant was diagnosed with depression and anxiety. The record is void of a mental status evaluation. The medical examination was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the command did not provide any assistance for the applicant's issues. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by enrolling the applicant in ASAP, providing counseling, and the imposition of non-judicial punishment. 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 applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. 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. The applicant contends taking an active role in the treatment for substance abuse and depression and making incredible progress in the treatment. 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. 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: Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and Depression/Major Depressive Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and Depression. The VA has also service connected the applicant with Major Depressive Disorder. The applicant's diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder and Anxiety are subsumed under the applicant's MDD (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 Major Depressive Disorder and self-medicating with substances, the applicant's MDD contributed to the applicant's Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, to include the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's MDD outweighed the basis for separation - Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure - for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends suffering from substance use disorder and depression during military service. The Board considered this contention during proceedings and determined that an upgrade was warranted based on the applicant's MDD outweighing the applicant's basis for separation - Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure. (2) The applicant contends the command did not provide any assistance for the applicant's issues. 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 MDD outweighing the applicant's basis for separation - Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure. (3) The applicant contends good service. 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 MDD outweighing the applicant's basis for separation - Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure. (4) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board considered this contention and determined that 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. (5) The applicant contends taking an active role in the treatment for substance abuse and depression and making incredible progress in the treatment. 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 MDD outweighing the applicant's basis for separation - Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's MDD outweighed the Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure basis for separation. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable based on the applicant's MDD outweighing the Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure basis for separation. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The Board voted not to change the RE code based on the applicant's service connection for Major Depressive Disorder by the VA. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20210001646 1