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 an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, an upgrade would allow the applicant to receive the GI Bill benefits to further the education and the career. The applicant was discharged in 2010 for the use of illegal drugs. The applicant was experiencing PTSD and had not been diagnosed or treated. The applicant has since been diagnosed and is being treated by the Memphis Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Shortly after returning from deployment, the applicant realized the applicant was experiencing anger, depression, and anxiety and turned to drugs and alcohol as a coping mechanism. After realizing the applicant had a problem, the applicant voluntarily went to Behavioral Health to seek counseling. Because the brigade had a zero tolerance on drug and alcohol abuse, the applicant was discharged immediately. The applicant received no medical or emotional treatment from the unit before the discharge. In 2009, the applicant was attached as a medic of a specific gender to Easy Company, 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment to aid the Infantry in the treatment and care of local nationals of a specific gender. This was no easy deployment. During this deployment, the unit lost 13 Soldiers to enemy fire, experienced the stress of the Private B. DSTWUN (duty status-whereabouts unknown) mission, and continuously lived under the threat of enemy direct and indirect fire. The applicant had no idea the impact these events would have on the applicant until earlier this year. The applicant’s return to garrison was very difficult and the applicant did not respond well to the unknown illness the applicant had at this time. After separation, the applicant returned home to start life again. The applicant has put oneself through college, earning an associate degree in emergency medicine; built a house; and learned how to cope with the military experiences with the help of the Memphis VA. In 2015 the VA diagnosed the applicant with PTSD stemming from the experiences while serving in the military. The applicant is attending therapy; taking the right medications without the use of illegal drugs; and learning how to manage and understand the “triggers.” The applicant’s goals are to return to school, maintain a degree in criminal justice or further education in medicine, and continue to be successful while serving the community. The applicant is unable to do this without the aid of the GI Bill. The applicant further contends earning an associate degree in paramedicine and an Associates of Applied Science as a registered nurse. The applicant sponsored oneself in college. The Mississippi Board of Nursing blocked the applicant’s license until further review because of this situation, although the applicant completed all the requirements and passed the licensure exam. The applicant has encountered difficulty securing a job in the medical field on multiple occasions because of this stain on the background check. The applicant realizes it was caused by the applicant’s own actions which caused the applicant’s early discharge from the Army. The applicant believes the applicant has rehabilitated and bettered oneself of the last nine years in a way the applicant can continue to help people in such a way the applicant did as a medic for the Infantry during deployment in Afghanistan. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 27 April 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 (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 21 October 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 September 2007 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W1P, Health Care Specialist / 3 years, 1 month, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Afghanistan (6 March 2009 – 8 March 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Orders 270-0176, dated 27 September 2010, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 21 October 2010 from the Regular Army. The applicant’s DD Form 214, reflects the applicant had not completed the first full term of service. The applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, with a narrative reason of Misconduct (Minor Infractions). The DD Form 214 was not authenticated with the applicant’s signature. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Memorandum, subject: Memo Requested by [Applicant], dated 10 September 2010, reflecting the applicant requested documentation of the visit to Behavioral Health before the applicant’s positive urinalysis. The applicant initially was seen on 14 July 2010 and discussed behavioral concerns, which stemmed in part from events which occurred during deployment and in part from personal circumstances. The applicant reported the applicant’s substance use was a way of self-medicating for the depression. A copy of VA letter, dated 15 September 2015, reflecting the applicant was rated 50 percent for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with alcohol disorder; 60 percent combined rating. A copy of VA Medical Center records, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with chronic PTSD; unspecified depressive disorder; borderline personality disorder; bipolar disorder depressed, mild; anxiety disorder; mood disorder, substance induced; addictive disorder, alcohol abuse, cannabis abuse, and cocaine abuse. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; two DD Forms 293; two self-authored statements; numerous third party character references; medical records; college transcripts; Associate of Applied Science Degree; Mississippi Bord of Nursing Criminal Background Check Results; Federal Bureau of Investigation Rap Sheet; Army Review Boards Agency, Case Management Division letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant earned an associate degree in paramedicine and an Associates of Applied Science as a registered nurse; built a house; and was a dedicated employee at various places of employment. 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 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. 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 “JKN” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (minor infractions). 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-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 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 period under review is honorable. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR) is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s signature. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12a, by reason of Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a characterization of service of honorable. The applicant’s statement and documents submitted by the applicant indicate the applicant was discharged because of a positive urinalysis. The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD; unspecified depressive disorder; borderline personality disorder; bipolar disorder depressed, mild; anxiety disorder; mood disorder, substance induced; addictive disorder, alcohol abuse, cannabis abuse, cocaine abuse. The applicant provided several medical documents supporting the above diagnoses. The VA rated the applicant 50 percent service-connected disabled for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with alcohol disorder; 60 percent combined rating. The applicant provided third party documents attesting to the applicant’s behavioral changes after deployment. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends not receiving any assistance from the command with mental health issues. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. 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. The applicant contends earning an associate degree in paramedicine and an Associates of Applied Science as a registered nurse; building a home; and being a dedicated employee at various places of 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good military service, to include service in Afghanistan and 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: PTSD, Acute Stress Disorder, Adjustment 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 Acute Stress Disorder and an Adjustment Disorder. Applicant is also diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD. Service connection establishes that applicant's PTSD also 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 was diagnosed in service with Acute Stress Disorder and an Adjustment Disorder. Applicant is also diagnosed, and service connected by the VA for PTSD. Given the nexus between PTSD and self-medicating with substances, applicant’s PTSD likely contributed to the cocaine use that led to separation. Records suggest that the appropriate mitigation has already been applied since applicant has an HD. The Board’s Medical Advisor opines that the narrative reason and RE Code remain appropriate given the misconduct, as well as the applicant’s service connection for a BH condition. (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 PTSD, Acute Stress Disorder, Adjustment Disorder outweighed the cocaine use accepted basis for separation for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD; unspecified depressive disorder; borderline personality disorder; bipolar disorder depressed, mild; anxiety disorder; mood disorder, substance induced; addictive disorder, alcohol abuse, cannabis abuse, cocaine abuse. The Board considered this contention and determined the current characterization of service is honorable, there is no further relief available with respect to characterization. Liberal consideration was applied to the narrative reason and it was determined PTSD did mitigate the misconduct, but did not fully excuse the misconduct, the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct and the fraction of responsibility remaining with the applicant makes “Minor Infractions” equitable. (2) The applicant contends not receiving any assistance from the command with mental health issues. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant did received assistance from the command when Applicant was command referred to ASAP. Ultimately, the current characterization of service is honorable, there is no further relief available with respect to characterization. Liberal consideration was applied to the narrative reason and it was determined PTSD did mitigate the misconduct, but did not fully excuse the misconduct, the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct and the fraction of responsibility remaining with the applicant makes “Minor Infractions” equitable. (3) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant’s willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant’s service record. (4) 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. (5) 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. (6) The applicant contends earning an associate degree in paramedicine and an Associates of Applied Science as a registered nurse; building a home; and being a dedicated employee at various places of employment. The Board considered this contention and determined the current characterization of service is honorable, there is no further relief available with respect to characterization. Liberal consideration was applied to the narrative reason and it was determined PTSD did mitigate the misconduct, but did not fully excuse the misconduct, the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct and the fraction of responsibility remaining with the applicant makes “Minor Infractions” equitable. c. 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 determined the discharge is proper and equitable as a prior ADRB has upgraded the discharge with a Characterization of Honorable, therefore no further relief is available. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as 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 AR20210002051 1