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, they are transitioning back to civilian life with hopes of furthering their education. The applicant made mistakes during the final stretch of their term, which were due to hardships, and the loss of a battle buddy. The applicant was a fast- tracking Soldier and received a battlefield promotion; Combat Action Badge; and ARCOM. The applicant did not understand the ways of their actions, nor the possibility of losing the ability to better oneself both as an asset to the military as well as oneself. An upgrade would help the applicant by furthering their education and obtaining better job opportunities. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 20 June 2023, and by a 5-0 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: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 March 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 March 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between on or about 16 December 2015 and 15 January 2015, the applicant tested positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 4 March 2015, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 March 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) ? 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 April 2012 / 3 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / High School Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10 2B, Motor Transport Operator / 2 years, 10 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (15 November 2012 – 22 July 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Personnel Action Form, dated 29 January 2013, reflects the applicant was approved for a battlefield promotion to E-4, effective 1 February 2013. CG Article 15, dated 7 March 2014, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 5, 11 and 12 February 2014. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; and extra duty for 14 days. MPR#0381-2014-PMC033, dated 21 July 2014, reflects the applicant was arrested for driving under the influence (off post); leaving the scene of an accident - failure to report accident (off post); resisting arrests (off post); fleeing or evading police 2nd degree (off post); menacing (off post); and failure of owner to maintain registration (off post). General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 24 July 2014, reflects the applicant was reprimanded for driving while under the influence of alcohol in Kentucky on 20 July 2014, in violation of Article 111, UCMJ. Summarized Article 15, dated 17 November 2014, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 20 and 27 October 2014; and failing to obey a lawful order issued by Sergeant G. B. on or about 21 October 2014. The punishment consisted of extra duty for 13 days; restriction for 14 days; and, oral reprimand. Incident Report, dated 7 February 2015, reflects the applicant was arrested for Domestic Violence w/Aggravated Assault and Criminal Impersonation. Two Personnel Action Forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Confined by Civilian Authorities (CCA)” effective 7 February 2015; and, From “CCA” to “PDY,” effective 23 February 2015. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 20 February 2015, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 493 (marijuana), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 15 January 2015. Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for failure to execute a direct order; failure to appear at formation; two occasions of failure to be at the appointed place of duty; being out of uniform; six occasions of failure to report; and debt counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: CCA for 16 days, 7 February 2015 – 23 February 2015. This period is not annotated on the DD Form 214 block 29. j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 January 2015, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. 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. It was noted: The Service Member was screened for PTSD and mTBI IAW OTSG/MEDCOM policy 10-040. Written results were positive. Service Member was further evaluated and findings were inconsistent with initial report. Service Member appears to be over reporting via psychological testing and clinical interview. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Adjustment Disorder Acute with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct, and Occupational Problem. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Enlisted Record Brief; Permanent Orders #038-171; three certificates; DA Form 638. 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 to include 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 contends good service, including a combat tour, a battlefield promotion, combat action badge and ARCOM. The applicant contends they made mistakes during the final stretch of their term, which were due to hardships, and the loss of a battle buddy. 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 AMHRR contains Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 January 2015, which reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. 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. It was noted: The Service Member was screened for PTSD and mTBI IAW OTSG/MEDCOM policy 10-040. Written results were positive. Service Member was further evaluated ad findings were inconsistent with initial report. Service Member appears to be over reporting via psychological testing and clinical interview. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Adjustment Disorder Acute with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct, and Occupational Problem. The mental status evaluation was considered by the separation authority. 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 an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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: Chronic Adjustment Disorder and TBI. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant is service connected for chronic adjustment disorder and has evidence of service-related mild TBI in VA records. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant’s TBI and Chronic Adjustment Disorder mitigate the applicant’s drug offense, as there is a nexus between these conditions and self-medication of symptoms via cannabis use. (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 applicant’s Chronic Adjustment Disorder/TBI mitigate the applicant’s drug use offense, the applicant’s Chronic Adjustment Disorder/TBI do not mitigate the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses considered by the separation authority IAW AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16(e)(2) and 35 – failure to report, resisting arrest, fleeing authorities, and domestic assault. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour, a battlefield promotion, combat action badge and ARCOM. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but 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. The applicant’s medically unmitigated failure to report, resisting arrest, fleeing authorities, and domestic assault diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (2) The applicant contends they made mistakes during the final stretch of their term, which were due to hardships, and the loss of a battle buddy. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with various forms of hardship experienced by Servicemembers and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the nature and severity of the applicant’s medically unmitigated misconduct is not an acceptable response to dealing with hardship. Therefore, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (3) 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. (4) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. c. The Board determined 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 Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, while the applicant’s Chronic Adjustment Disorder and TBI mitigates the applicant’s wrongful use of THC is medically mitigated by the applicant’s, these behavioral health conditions do not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated misconduct considered by the separation authority at the time of discharge for purposes of characterizing the applicant’s service – failure to report, resisting arrest, fleeing authorities, and domestic assault – the applicant’s discharge is not outweighed. The Board further considered the applicant’s contentions of inequity and impropriety and determined there were insufficient mitigating factors such that would warrant an upgrade. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s General Discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable Discharge. (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 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210001874 1