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, the discharge was inequitable, because the substance abuse was a direct result of coping with the post-traumatic stress disorder. To treat the substance usage, the applicant later participated in and finished the "Intensive Outpatient Program" at the nearby VA in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The applicant is actively participating in therapy sessions to address the PTSD. If approved, an upgrade would give the applicant the chance to go to college and subsequently, would provide the applicant the chance to become a more productive, contributing member of society. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 1 June 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, MDD, and asserted PTSD outweighed the medically mitigated basis for separation - positive UA for marijuana. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable, changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, changed the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) with a corresponding separation code of JKN, and changed 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: 12 March 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 February 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant tested positive for marijuana on 11 December 2012. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 20 February 2013, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 February 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 October 2009 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / High School Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 25C10 T2, Radio Operator Maintainer / 3 years, 5 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Six Developmental Counseling Forms for various acts of misconduct. CG Article 15, dated 30 May 2012, for being disrespectful in language towards an NCO on 19 April 2012, and violating a lawful general regulation by providing alcohol to an underage Soldier on 3 November 2011. The punishment: NIF. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 1 August 2012, reflects the suspended punishment imposed on 30 May 2012, was vacated for violating Article 92, UCMJ, for dereliction in the performance of duty by negligent discharge of the assigned weapon. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 20 December 2012, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 1261 (marijuana), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 11 December 2012. FG Article 15, dated 6 February 2013, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 11 November and 11 December 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $758 pay per month for two months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days; and an oral reprimand. Joint Base Lewis-McChord CCIR reflects on 5 October 2012, the applicant was identified as the person involved in a drug use incident when found face down in the barracks room expressing depressive thoughts viewed a potentially suicidal in nature, and found to be in possession of the drug, spice. The report details the events surrounding the incident and an MP investigation. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 January 2013, reflects the applicant was cleared from a behavioral perspective 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 results of the PTSD and mTBI were NIF, but indicated the screenings were conducted, and 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. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical History, dated 5 November 2012, indicates the applicant noted having seen a psychiatrist and was diagnosed with: Anxiety/Depression, Anger management, PTSD, and lack of sleep, and the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: The applicant was pending an appointment to see the behavioral health on 20 November 2012. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and Completion Certificate. Additional Evidence: two third-party letters. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Third-party letter states the applicant is employed in a mailroom with a Veterans Health Care System. 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 the discharge was inequitable because the substance abuse was the result of having to cope with the post-traumatic stress disorder. The applicant contends trying to cope with the PTSD resulted in the discharge and is now actively participating in therapy sessions to address the PTSD. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis; however, the applicant's official medical records indicate that the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder, Alcohol Abuse, Anxiety, ADHD, and Major Depressive Disorder. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 22 January 2013, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The MSE did not provide any behavioral health diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends to have finished a "Intensive Outpatient Program" for substance abuse and to be actively engaging in therapy sessions to address the PTSD; the third-party letter indicates the applicant is maintaining an 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. The applicant contends an upgrade would provide for educational benefits to attend college, and the third-party letters indicate an upgrade would provide the applicant benefits to succeed. Eligibility for veterans' 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 third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character and performance and recognize the applicant's good conduct after leaving the Army. 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 Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Additionally, the applicant asserts PTSD, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (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 and Anxiety. Applicant is also diagnosed and service connected by the VA for MDD. Service connection establishes that applicant's MDD also existed during military service. Applicant also asserts 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 MDD mitigates the applicant's drug offense given the nexus between MDD and self-medicating with substances, the marijuana use that led to applicant's separation is mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's above-mentioned behavioral health conditions, specifically the applicant's MDD outweighed, the medically mitigated basis for separation - positive UA for marijuana. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because the substance abuse was the result of having to cope with the PTSD, and the applicant is now actively participating in therapy sessions to address the condition. The Board considered this contention and ultimately determined that an upgrade was warranted because the applicant's behavioral health conditions outweighed the medically mitigated basis for separation- positive UA for marijuana. (2) The applicant contends to have finished an "Intensive Outpatient Program" for substance abuse and to be actively engaging in therapy sessions to address the PTSD; the third-party letter demonstrates the applicant is maintaining an employment. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention as the Board granted relief based on the applicant's above-mentioned behavioral health conditions, specifically the applicant's MDD, outweighed the medically mitigated basis for separation - positive UA for marijuana. (3) The applicant contends an upgrade would provide for educational benefits to attend college, and the third-party letters indicate an upgrade would provide the applicant benefits to succeed. 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. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, MDD, and asserted PTSD outweighed the basis for separation - positive UA for marijuana. Thus, warranting relief. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's above-mentioned behavioral health conditions, specifically the applicant's MDD, outweighed the medically mitigated basis for separation - positive UA for marijuana. 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 AR20210001876 1