1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: 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 request for mental health services after the Fort Hood shooting was due to symptoms of PTSD which interfered with the applicant's ability to serve. After the shooting, on several occasions, the applicant requested mental health services, but was told by the 1SG, asking for help was not an option because it would compromise the applicant's MOS (68X). The 1SG stated the applicant could not be treated on base because there would be a conflict of interest since the applicant was employed within Mental Health; the applicant would have to be seen off base. The 1SG also emphasized inpatient psychiatry was short staffed and there was not enough staff to cover the applicant should the applicant have to attend mental health appointments, especially in the event the applicant was moved from their position due to mental health issues. The applicant continued to work long hours directly under MAJ N. H. who was taunting and chastising the psychiatric inpatients at the hospital. The patients disclosed MAJ N. H. was shaming them and questioning their loyalty to the U.S. military and attempting to convert these Soldiers to the version of "Islam". As the squad leader, the applicant reported these concerns to the first line supervisor and immediate command. Under the current efforts to change the climate in mental health, the applicant would have been offered mental health services to address the mental health and substance abuse issues. The applicant's record of promotion shows the applicant was a good Soldier. The applicant was not provided due process by way of offering a comprehensive mental health assessment and rehabilitation. The command abused their authority when it decided to discharge the applicant and issue an inequitable discharge. The applicant was discharged 16 days prior to the end of the contract. The applicant was told they could not have a medical board review and the applicant needed to sign all the papers issued or face jail. Again, the applicant asked for mental health help and was denied the opportunity to seek help. The applicant was told by the chain of command the reason the applicant was seen by three psychiatrist was because the commander was looking to have the right answers to have the applicant seen by three doctors of psychiatry, two deemed the applicant mentally unfit to discharge and the third and last deemed the applicant sound to be discharged. The applicant is currently 70 percent disabled from the VA standards with a diagnosis of PTSD. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 6 June 2023, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD and Generalized Anxiety Disorder outweighing the applicant's cocaine use basis for separation. 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 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: 11 August 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 June 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was found guilty in a Field Grade Article 15 proceeding on 28 February 2011 for wrongfully using cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 1 July 2011, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 August 2007 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / High School Graduate / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68X10, Mental Health Specialist / 3 years, 11 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, ASUA, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment Form, dated 3 January 2011, reflects the applicant was referred to the ASAP for a comprehensive assessment to determine whether the individual met the criteria for enrollment. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 2 February 2011, reflects the applicant tested positive for COC 376, during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing, conducted on 20 January 2011. CID Report of Investigation, dated 10 February 2011, reflects on 7 February 2011, CPT A. B., reported to CID the applicant tested positive for Cocaine during a unit urinalysis test conducted on 20 January 2011. FG Article 15, dated 28 February 2011, for wrongfully using cocaine (between 17 and 20 January 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $822 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Personnel Action Form, dated 2 March 2011, reflects the applicant was reduced in rank from E-4 to E-2, effective 28 February 2011 due to misconduct. Developmental Counseling Forms, for positive UA for Cocaine; probable cause urinalysis; and two occasions for failure to meet the minimum passing standards of the APFT. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Patient Inquiry, reflects the applicant was admitted on 17 October and discharged on 20 October 2015 at the MHTC ALM Prime PSYCH and reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent service-connected disabled for PTSD by the VA. (2) AMHRR Listed: Mental Status Evaluation, dated 31 March 2011, reflects the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The applicant needed further examination. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Generalized Anxiety Disorder. It was noted a chronic mental health condition was identified during the process of today's evaluation. A review of records indicated this SM has recently been diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and has yet to receive treatment for this condition. Based upon today's evaluation the Soldier does meet diagnostic criteria or a mental health diagnosis and may require an MEB. The Service Member was screened for PTSD and mTBI IAW OTSG/MEDCOM Policy Memo 08-018. Screening results negative for mTBI but elevated for PTSD; however, this SM has never deployed. Soldier does not appear to be a danger to oneself or others, specifically denies any previous or current SI/HI. SM may fall below retention standards IAW AR 40-501 and require further evaluation and treatment. SM is not cleared for chapter separation or administrative action at this time. SM is returned to duty conditionally, and requires more extensive evaluation and treatment for a diagnosis. It is recommended the SM expeditiously engage in treatment for anxiety and continue to undergo periodic evaluation by the primary MH provider in order determine fitness for duty and whether this SM will require an MEB. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 June 2011, 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. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Generalized Anxiety Disorder; Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depression. It was noted the SM has a history of cocaine use, consistent with a diagnosis of cocaine abuse. SM also has symptoms of anxiety, consistent with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, as well as symptoms of depression, consistent with an adjustment disorder. However, SM does not have any behavioral health conditions so severe as to cause SM to fail medical retention criteria or require disposition through medical channels. SM also does not have any behavioral health condition which would preclude administrative action or disposition. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DA Form 293; self-authored statement; Patient Inquiry; DD Form 214. 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 waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable 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. The applicant contends requesting mental health services after the Fort Hood shooting; however, was told by the 1SG, asking for help was not an option because it would compromise the applicant's MOS. The applicant was also told the applicant could not be treated on the base because there would be a conflict of interest. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. 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 being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided Patient Inquiry, which reflects the applicant was admitted on 17 October and discharged on 20 October 2015 at the MHTC ALM Prime PSYCH and reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent service-connected disabled for PTSD by the VA. The AMHRR contains Mental Status Evaluation, dated 31 March 2011, which reflects the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Generalized Anxiety Disorder; Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depression. It was noted the SM has a history of cocaine use, consistent with a diagnosis of cocaine abuse. SM also has symptoms of anxiety, consistent with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, as well as symptoms of depression, consistent with an adjustment disorder. However, SM does not have any behavioral health conditions so severe as to cause SM to fail medical retention criteria or require disposition through medical channels. SM also does not have any behavioral health condition which would preclude administrative action or disposition. Both MSE's were considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the command abused their authority when it decided to discharge the applicant and issued an inequitable discharge. The applicant was discharged 16 days prior to the end of the contract and was told the applicant could not have a medical board review. Army Regulation 635-200 stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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 Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant GAD and PTSD existed during the applicant's 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 PTSD and GAD mitigates the applicant's as natural history and sequelae of PTSD and anxiety is often associated with self-medication through illicit drug use. (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 PTSD and GAD outweighed the applicant's medically mitigated basis for separation - wrongful drug use (cocaine). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant's service record; however, the applicant's PTSD and Generalized Anxiety Disorder outweighed the applicant's cocaine use basis for separation which warrants as upgrade in the applicant's discharge. (2) The applicant contends requesting mental health services after the Fort Hood shooting; however, was told by the 1SG asking for help was not an option because it would compromise the applicant's MOS. The applicant contends that the applicant was also told they could not be treated on the base because there would be a conflict of interest. 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 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder fully outweighing the applicant's cocaine use basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The Board considered this contention and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to the applicant's PTSD and GAD outweighing the applicant's cocaine use basis for separation. (4) The applicant contends the command abused their authority when it decided to discharge the applicant and issued an inequitable discharge. The applicant was discharged 16 days prior to the end of the contract and was told they could not have a medical board review. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD and GAD outweighed the applicant's medically mitigated basis for separation - wrongful use of cocaine. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD and GAD outweighed the applicant's medically mitigated basis for separation - wrongful drug use (cocaine). 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 d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD and GAD outweighed the applicant's medically mitigated basis for separation - wrongful drug use (cocaine). 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. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The Board voted to change the RE code to RE-3 due to applicant's PTSD and GAD diagnoses warranting consideration prior to reentry of military service. 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 AR20210001889 1