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 honorable. The applicant requests a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, at the personal appearance hearing board in 2011, the applicant was instructed to present medical records supporting a PTSD diagnosis to receive an honorable and medical discharge. However, the symptoms of PTSD made accomplishing tasks difficult, if not impossible, without assistance. Working full-time with traveling demanded all the attention and energy at the time. The anguish of being separated from a young child who lives in Germany was also a stress factor for the applicant. The applicant found interpersonal relationships to be extremely complex and challenging. The applicant called the Veterans Crisis Line in May 2015 after the breakdown of a relationship, which led to enrollment in and appointments with a drug rehab center and a psychosocial rehabilitation facility. Both the applicant's substance abuse and PTSD from service in the military are being treated. Since 2009, the applicant has been suffering from military-related PTSD, which was not properly diagnosed at the time. The diagnosis of depression was simply the tip of the iceberg. The discharge was based partially on substance abuse (marijuana). Upon returning from Iraq, the applicant was not given the opportunity for rehabilitation through Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), nor treatment for the PTSD symptoms. The applicant is continuing to receive care in a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) residential program for the PTSD symptoms. Receiving treatment for the substance abuse and coping with the PTSD symptoms have proven to be effective. The applicant claims to have served honorably, receiving a good conduct medal and many other achievements and accomplishments. The applicant further details the contentions in the application and in an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 10 August 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board, based on the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighing the applicant's illegal drug abuse, determined the narrative reason for the applicant's separation is now inequitable. Therefore, the Board directed the issue of a new DD Form 214 changing the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. The Board determined the characterization of service was proper and equitable and voted not to change it as the applicant already holds an Honorable characterization. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200, Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 2 February 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 January 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant tested positive for marijuana on 8 October, and again on 4 November 2009. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 January 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 January 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 May 2004 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / Bachelor's Degree / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 68A20, Biomedical Equipment Specialist / 5 years, 8 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (11 March 2008 - 17 March 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: 1 October 2006 - 31 July 2007 / Among the Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 13 October 2007, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 31 August and 20 September 2007). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $941 pay per month for one month; extra duty for 45 days; and restriction for 45 days (suspended). Two Developmental Counseling Forms for testing positive during a urinalysis, previous being enrolled in ASAP, and having a fourth positive urinalysis. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 16 October 2009, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 139 (marijuana), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 8 October 2009. FG Article 15, dated 13 November 2009, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 8 September and 8 October 2009). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $784 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment form, dated 17 November 2009, reflects the applicant was command-referred in the ASAP. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 23 November 2009, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC LOL (marijuana), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 4 November 2009. Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 December 2009, reflects the applicant was cleared for an administrative separation. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and TBI with negative results. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 7 December 2009, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 13 November 2009, was vacated for violation of Article 112a, UCMJ, wrongfully using marijuana (between 4 October and 4 November 2009). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: South Texas Veterans Health Care System (HCS) Psychology Note, dated 10 August 2015, reflects the applicant diagnoses: PTSD, Major Depressive disorder, recurrent episode, unspecified degree; Other and unspecified dependence; unspecified drinking behavior; Cannabis dependence; and Lack of housing. South Texas HCS Progress Notes, dated 4 September 2015, reflect the applicant has been actively involved during treatment for the PTSD diagnosis. The DSMV were Cannabis Use Disorder, severe (Cannabis Dependence); Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; Unspecified Depression (MDD - 30 percent SC); and Chronic pain. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application and health Progress Notes. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states being employed full-time. 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) 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. (4) 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. (5) Paragraph 14-12c(2) 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 14-12a or 14-12b as appropriate. 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 "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, Misconduct (Drug Abuse). 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 contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200 with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Drug Abuse)," and the separation code is "JKK." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs 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 to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends to have been suffering from military-related PTSD since 2009, which was not properly diagnosed at the time, and the diagnosis of depression was simply the tip of the iceberg but has since been receiving treatment for the PTSD diagnosis. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating diagnoses and treatment for PTSD and major depressive disorder, and prescribed medication. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 2 December 2009, which indicates the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and met medical retention requirements. The MSE did not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the anguish of being separated from a young child who lives in Germany was also a stress factor. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends not being provided the opportunity for rehabilitation through ASAP, nor treatment for the PTSD symptoms upon returning from deployment. 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. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-17d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the separation authority may waive the rehabilitative requirements in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate such a transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. The applicant contends to have served honorably, received a good conduct medal and many other achievements and accomplishments. The applicant contends obtaining a full-time employment. 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: Depression, Dysthymic Disorder, and Post Traumatic Stress 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 Dysthymic Disorder and Depression. The applicant is also diagnosed and service connected by the VA for combat- related PTSD. Service connection establishes that the applicant's PTSD existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant's marijuana use that led to separation is mitigated by the applicant's PTSD and Depression given the nexus between PTSD, Depression, and self-medicating with substances. (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 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighed the applicant's illegal drug abuse. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends to have been suffering from military-related PTSD since 2009, which was not properly diagnosed at the time, and the diagnosis of depression was simply the tip of the iceberg but has since been receiving treatment for the PTSD diagnosis. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the applicant's illegal drug abuse. Therefore, a change in the narrative reason is warranted. (2) The applicant contends the anguish of being separated from a young child who lives in Germany was also a stress factor. 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 PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's drug abuse basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends not being provided the opportunity for rehabilitation through ASAP, nor treatment for the PTSD symptoms upon returning from deployment. 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 PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's drug abuse basis for separation. (4) The applicant contends to have served honorably, received a good conduct medal and many other achievements and accomplishments. 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 PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's drug abuse basis for separation. (5) The applicant contends obtaining a full-time employment. 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 PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's drug abuse basis for separation. c. The Board, based on the applicant's PTSD outweighing the applicant's illegal drug abuse, determined the narrative reason for the applicant's separation is now inequitable. Therefore, the Board directed the issue of a new DD Form 214 changing the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. The Board determined the characterization of service was proper and equitable and voted not to change it as the applicant already holds an Honorable characterization. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board determined the discharge is proper and equitable as a prior ADRB has upgraded the discharge with a character of Honorable, therefore is no further relief available. (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: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: RE-3 e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210001708 1