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, deciding to serve the country as an active-duty Soldier after responsibilities to the family became overwhelming. Not long after being stationed at Fort Hood, the applicant began to face racial discrimination, which affected the ability to serve. The applicant’s youth and immaturity only escalated the tension. Due to peer pressure, depression, and the financial strain, the applicant smoked marijuana and failed two drug tests. Other than the two failed tests, the applicant states the military career was exemplary. The applicant contends the command abused their authority when they chose to discharge the applicant without proper guidance. The applicant was not afforded the opportunity of counseling, or a fair chance to prove oneself. The applicant states trying to apply for a hardship discharge but was told it did not exist. An upgrade would allow the applicant access to educational benefits, pursue a career in business, and become a productive member of society. The applicant cannot afford the cost of college and is concerned about future. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 13 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 (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200, Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 22 April 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: undated (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 30 May 2007, the applicant received a Field Grade Article 15, for testing positive for marijuana between 28 February and 29 March 2007, and on 26 September 2007, the applicant received another Field Grade Article 15 for testing positive for marijuana between 2 July and 2 August 2007. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions / The intermediate commander’s recommendation is void from Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). (4) Legal Consultation Date: 6 November 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 6 November 2007, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 April 2008 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 February 2007 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 8 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 22 June 2005 – 23 August 2005 / NA IADT, 24 August 2005 – 3 March 2006 / HD ARNG, 4 March 2006 – 25 February 2007 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, undated, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 27 (marijuana), during an inspection (NIF) urinalysis testing, conducted on 29 March 2007. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 9 August 2007, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 19 (marijuana), during an Inspection Other (IO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 2 August 2007. FG Article 15, dated 31 May 2007, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 28 February and 29 March 2007). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $650 (suspended); extra duty for 45 days and restriction for 14 days (31 days suspended to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 26 October 2007). Mental Status Evaluation, dated 17 September 2017, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with a clear-thinking process. The applicant was evaluated by Psychology Department, Darnell Army Medical Center pursuant to AR 635-200, Ch 14. The evaluation revealed no evidence of current suicidal or homicidal intent or plan; altered thought process, or any psychiatric disorder which would explain the behaviors for which this separation is being considered. FG Article 15, dated 26 September 2007, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 2 July and 2 August 2007). The punishment imposed is NIF. Charge Sheet, dated 13 February 2008, reflects the applicant was charged with: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, for without authority absent oneself from unit on or about 11 December 2007 to on or about 24 January 2008. Offer to Plead Guilty, dated 14 February 2008, to the charges and specification, as stated in the Offer to Plead Guilty, and offer to abide by the other terms and conditions set forth in the Offer to Plead Guilty, provided the Convening Authority will approve confinement credit of 18 days towards any adjudged confinement under Article 13, UCMJ and refer case to a Summary Court- Martial and approve no punishments greater than authorized. Report of Result of Trial reflects the applicant was tried in a Summary Court-Martial on 14 February 2008. The applicant was charged with one specification. The summary of offenses, pleas, and findings: Violation of Article 86, Failure to report: On 14 February 2008; guilty consistent with the plea; Sentence: Forfeiture $867 pay and confinement for 25 days. Date sentience adjudged and effective date of any forfeiture or reduction in grade 14 February 2008. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 11 December 2007; and From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 24 January 2008. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 111 days: AWOL, 11 December 2007 – 23 January 2007 / NIF CMA, 14 February 2008 – 22 April 2008 / Released from Confinement j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD 214; DD Form 293; self-authored letter; two letters of support. 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’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends due to peer pressure, depression, and the financial strain, the applicant smoked marijuana and failed two drug tests. The evidence of the AMHRR shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling and the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The Mental Status Evaluation, dated 17 September 2017, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with a clear-thinking process. The applicant was evaluated by Psychology Department, Darnell Army Medical Center pursuant to AR 635-200, Ch 14. The evaluation revealed no evidence of current suicidal or homicidal intent or plan; altered thought process, or any psychiatric disorder which would explain the behaviors for which this separation is being considered. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends not long after being stationed at Fort Hood, the applicant began to face racial discrimination, which affected the ability to serve. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends good service. 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 of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits 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 found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD. Service connection establishes that applicant's PTSD existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD related to a truck fire that occurred in September 2007. While PTSD is a mitigating BH condition for substance use, applicant’s index trauma occurred after both incidents of the marijuana use that led to separation. As such, applicant’s PTSD did not exist at the time of the substance use that led to separation and therefore, did not contribute to the misconduct. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – marijuana use and AWOL – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends due to peer pressure, depression, and the financial strain, the applicant smoked marijuana and failed two drug tests. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with depression, and the financial strain, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant abusing drugs is not an acceptable response to dealing with depression, and the financial strain, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (2) The applicant contends not long after being stationed at Fort Hood, the applicant began to face racial discrimination, which affected the ability to serve. The Board considered this contention and determined there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant was racially discriminated against. Ultimately the Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (3) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not excuse the misconduct. There is insufficient evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (4) The applicant contends good service. 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. By marijuana use and AWOL, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. 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. (6) 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 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, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of marijuana use and AWOL. 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. (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 AR20210002089 1