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, nearing third deployment in six years. As a young NCO, the applicant was under an immense amount of pressure. It was to a point where the applicant simply wanted a break from the stress and did not care how. The applicant coped with the stress by using drugs and alcohol. The applicant thought, make it to deployment, and then everything would be normal again. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 27 June 2023, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the totality of the applicant's record, including the applicant's PTSD and TBI mitigating the applicant's wrongful use of marijuana, the length of time since the applicant's discharge, the applicant's length and quality of service, and finding that the medically unmitigated misconduct (attempting to falsify results of a UA) was minor in nature. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable 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 (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200, Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 8 May 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 January 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant wrongfully used Marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. In addition, the applicant further attempted to falsify the result of the urinalysis by submitting synthetic urine from a bladder at the urinalysis, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 1 February 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 18 April 2012, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, per Memorandum for Record, dated 18 April 2012, from trial counsel. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 April 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 October 2007 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / GED / 121 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 13B20, Cannon Crewmember / 6 years, 3 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 24 January 2006 - 20 October 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (19 October 2006 - 9 January 2006; 22 July 2009 - 1 July 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-3CS, ARCOM-2, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 April 2010 - 31 March 2011 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 12 September 2011, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 139 (marijuana), during a Probable Cause (PO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 31 August 2011. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 14 October 2011, reflects. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. Service member has been screened for substance use disorders (alcohol and drugs). FG Article 15, dated 19 October 2011, for wrongfully using marijuana and violate a lawful general regulation on or about 31 August 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1,115 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. CID Report of Investigation - Final, dated 21 October 2011, reflects an investigation established probable cause existed to believe the applicant committed the offenses of Failure to Obey General Order (I Corps Policy' Memo 25) when the applicant possessed and used a device to submit an adulterated urine sample to conceal own illicit drug use. The applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Use of Marihuana when the submitted subsequent urine sample, which was tested and found to contain the active ingredient in marijuana. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: A copy of a VA benefits letter dated 4 September 2013, reflecting a service connection of 30 percent for PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical History, dated 18 November 2011, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Being followed by behavioral health. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293 and VA benefits letter. 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 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 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. (5) 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. (6) 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 requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends as a young NCO, the applicant was under an immense amount of pressure and the applicant simply wanted a break from the stress and did not care how. The applicant coped with the stress by using drugs and alcohol. The AMHRR reflects a Report of Medical History, dated 18 November 2011, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Being followed by behavioral health. The applicant provided a VA benefits letter, dated 4 September 2013, reflecting a service connection of 30 percent for PTSD. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. 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: PTSD and TBI. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant PTSD and TBI existed during the applicant's military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant's PTSD mitigates the use of cannabis given the nexus between PTSD and use of illicit substances as a form of self-medication of associated symptoms and distress. However, neither PTSD nor mild TBI of the nature/severity described in the record mitigate the applicant's attempt to falsifying results of the UA by submitting synthetic urine as PTSD/TBI do not interfere with the inability to differentiate right from wrong and adhere to the right. (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, while the wrongful use of Marijuana is mitigated by the applicant's PTSD and TBI, the applicant's BH conditions do not outweigh the applicant's medically unmitigated offense of attempts to falsify results of UA. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends as a young NCO, the applicant was under an immense amount of pressure, and the applicant simply wanted a break from the stress and did not care how. The applicant coped with the stress by using drugs and alcohol. The Board considered this contention but ultimately did not address it during deliberations as the Board voted to upgrade the discharge based on the totality of the applicant's record, including the applicant's PTSD and TBI mitigating the applicant's wrongful use of marijuana, the length of time since the applicant's discharge, the applicant's length and quality of service, and finding that the medically unmitigated misconduct (attempting to falsify results of a UA) was minor in nature. (2) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The Board considered this contention but ultimately did not address it during deliberations as the Board voted to upgrade the discharge based on the totality of the applicant's record, including the applicant's PTSD and TBI mitigating the applicant's wrongful use of marijuana, the length of time since the applicant's discharge, the applicant's length and quality of service, and finding that the medically unmitigated misconduct (attempting to falsify results of a UA) was minor in nature. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the totality of the applicant's record, including the applicant's PTSD and TBI mitigating the applicant's wrongful use of marijuana, the length of time since the applicant's discharge, the applicant's length and quality of service, and finding that the medically unmitigated misconduct (attempting to falsify results of a UA) was minor in nature. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable based on the totality of the applicant's record, including the applicant's PTSD and TBI mitigating the applicant's wrongful use of marijuana, the length of time since the applicant's discharge, the applicant's length and quality of service, and finding that the medically unmitigated misconduct (attempting to falsify results of a UA) was minor in nature. 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 Board voted to change the RE code to RE-3. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20210001821 1