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, being improperly discharged after failing a unit urinalysis test because the applicant was suffering from undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from a deployment. Because Soldiers with PTSD were considered unfit for duty and non-deployable, the applicant never disclosed the illness to leadership. The applicant smoked marijuana to cope with stress. The applicant states leadership never showed any proof of the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) percentages resulting from the urinalysis test. This was the applicant’s first failed test, so the unit allowed the applicant to remain in the service. The applicant failed another urinalysis test four weeks later, knowing marijuana stays in one’s system up to six weeks, making the test biased. The applicant’s THC percentages were 17 percent, while the natural amount in the body is 11 percent. The applicant states much more would have been in one’s system if the applicant continued smoking marijuana. The applicant states never receiving any information on a proper discharge or a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) from leadership. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour and desires to rejoin the Military Service. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 21 March 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: Use of Illegal Drugs / AR 135-178, Chapter 12-1d / NA / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 24 May 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The notification of initiation of separation proceedings is void from the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). The Memorandum for Commander, dated 13 May 2011, reflects the following reason for recommended separation: The applicant was separated for misconduct abuse of illegal drugs; receiving second notification on 5 December 2010, for second positive urinalysis test on12 November 2010, but failed to respond to second notification. (3) Recommended Characterization: The notification of initiation of separation proceedings is void from the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). The Memorandum for Commander, dated 13 May 2011, reflects the immediate commander recommended: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 8 August 2010, the applicant submitted a conditional waiver. The applicant’s failure to respond to second notification on 5 December 2010, for second positive urinalysis constituted a waiver of rights to an administrative separation board. (5) Administrative Separation Board: Memorandum for Commander, dated 13 May 2011, reflects the applicant failed to respond to notification. Although the applicant submitted a conditional waiver on 8 August 2010, to the initial notification for first positive urinalysis, it was determined failure to respond to a subsequent notification constituted a waiver of rights to an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 May 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 June 2006 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 4 years, 11 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: AD, 17 July 2008 – 4 August 2009 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait/Iraq (7 September 2008 – 11 July 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR, AFRMMD g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Orders 17-349-00007, dated 15 December 2017, reflect the applicant was discharged from the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 24 May 2011. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application. 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 135-178 prescribes the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. (1) Paragraph 2-9a prescribes an honorable characterization 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. (2) Paragraph 2-9b, prescribes, if a Soldier’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as general (under honorable conditions). Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of the Soldier’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the Soldier’s military record. (3) Chapter 11 (previously Chapter 12), 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, and convictions by civil authorities. 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 11-1d, prescribes illegal drug use is serious misconduct. Discharge action normally will be based upon commission of a serious offense. However, relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug offense may be combined with one or more disciplinary infractions or incidents or other misconduct and processed for discharge. (5) Paragraph 11-8, states an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge may be 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 applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s AMHRR includes partial facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the applicant’s discharge from the Army Reserve. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted discharge order: Orders 17-349-00007, dated 15 December 2017. The orders indicate the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends the discharge was improper and suffering from undiagnosed PTSD, which ultimately caused the discharge. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of any mental health diagnosis. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. 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 requests a an RE Code change. Orders are published when service members are discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve, which indicate the effective date and characterization of the discharge. Narrative reasons and RE Codes usually are not included in the order. In insomuch as the applicant’s discharge order does not have these elements, the ADRB has no basis for changing the discharge order. If the applicant desires to rejoin the military, local recruiters can determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility. 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: none. However, the applicant's assertion of PTSD 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, under liberal consideration, the applicant’s asserted PTSD existed during the applicant’s 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, while PTSD could mitigate the applicant’s drug use as self-medication of symptoms is a common presentation through the natural course of PTSD, the applicant’s asserted PTSD does not mitigate the applicant’s drug use because there is no evidence of any behavioral health conditions in the applicant’s official medical record or provided by the applicant from a VA or qualified civilian provider that the applicant has a PTSD diagnosis or has experienced PTSD symptoms associated with the applicant’s military service. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s asserted PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – wrongful use of illegal drugs – for the aforementioned reason. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the discharge was improper and suffering from undiagnosed PTSD, which ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s asserted PTSD; however, the Board determined that there is insufficient evidence of the diagnosis in official or medical records, and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation by a qualified medical professional to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board determined that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity or and number of the drug offenses. (2) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. 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 engaging in the use of illegal drugs, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (3) The applicant requests an RE Code change. The Board considered this contention and determined that no change is warranted as the applicant was discharge from the Army Reserve, which does not include narrative reasons/SPD Codes/RE-codes on the applicant’s discharge orders. 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, the applicant’s asserted PTSD did not mitigate the offenses of wrongful use of illegal drugs (twice). The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s General Discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable Discharge. (2) As there were no Reasons/SPD Codes listed on the applicant’s discharge paperwork, due to service in the Army Reserves, no upgrade actions are required for these items. (3) As there is no RE-code listed on the applicant’s discharge paperwork, due to service in the Army Reserves, no upgrade actions are required for this item. 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 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 AR20210002160 1