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, during enlistment, a local recruiter lied to the applicant stating because the applicant's degree was in theological studies, the only way the applicant could become a commissioned officer was through the Army's Chaplaincy Program. The Army Chaplain liaison at Anderson University, stated the applicant would need to complete the studies at Anderson and apply for the Chaplaincy Program. The applicant enlisted, under the direction of the recruiter and served honorably. The applicant was assigned to Joint Base Lewis McChord and sought professional help for anxiety, depression, and an adjustment disorder and, with counseling and medication, completed the term of service. At the end of the contract, the applicant enrolled in a transition program, Microsoft Software Systems Academy (MSSA). The applicant discontinued treatment because it hindered the applicant's ability to excel in the program, which led to self-medicating. The applicant used marijuana on a particular occasion when the applicant appeared to be suicidal. The applicant was called back to the unit regularly, to perform menial tasks because of jealous sergeants. The applicant used a marijuana product, legally obtained, and failed the urinalysis The applicant was removed from the MSSA program. The applicant performed demeaning tasks until receiving an Article 15. Sergeant First Class (SFC) C. F., indicated the applicant's security clearance was suspended and the applicant could no longer perform duties as a 25S. The applicant contracted an H-Pylori infection, a bacteria found in soil and feces, but the command did not change the schedule. The applicant was told the applicant would be able to meet the expiration term of service (ETS) without the issue following the applicant. The applicant's commander agreed to send an appeal to the United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) Commander for an honorable discharge, but the applicant may have to remain beyond the ETS. Staff Sergeant (SSG) N. J., disagreed with the course of action and indicated the applicant would continue to complete menial tasks because of the suspended security clearance. The applicant considered the options and accepted the general discharge one week before the ETS. The defense counsel indicated it was a mistake and agreed to request to delay proceedings for rebuttal to allow the applicant to ETS on 11 June 2016. The applicant's ETS orders were rescinded and the applicant was discharged on 10 June 2016, on a Friday. The applicant's family experienced significant financial distress. Companies which competed for the applicant while in the MSSA program, refused to interview the applicant. The applicant was denied unemployment insurance after honorably serving the country. The applicant's ability to care for the family boils down to 24 hours. Specialist D. S., was charged with the same offense and received a general discharge. SPC D. S.'s, DD Form 214 states "completed the first full term of service." The applicant's family should not suffer for the applicant's mistake. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which makes employment in the near future all the more remote. The applicant further details the contentions in the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 21 March 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable because the applicant's Anxiety and Major Depressive Disorder outweighed the basis for separation - wrongful use of marijuana. 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 though the applicant's misconduct is mitigated, the BH conditions are service limiting and thus, the reentry eligibility (RE) code will remain RE-4. 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, Paragraph 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 June 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 May 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant between 17 January and 16 February 2016, wrongfully used marijuana a schedule I controlled substance. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 1 June 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 8 June 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 March 2012 / 4 years / The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of any enlistment contract retaining the applicant on active duty after the initial enlistment period. The applicant's DD Form 214 reflects extension of service was at the request and for the convenience of the government. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 30 / Bachelor's Degree / 130 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 25S1P, 7D SATCOM System Operator-Maintainer / 4 years, 2 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR / The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) reflects award of a second AAM; however, the award is not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 29 February 2016, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 25 (marijuana), during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing, conducted on 16 February 2016. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment, dated 2 March 2016, reflects the applicant was command referred to ASAP because the applicant tested positive on a urinalysis. Law Enforcement Report - Initial - Final, dated 10 March 2016, reflects an investigation established the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Use of a Controlled Substance when the applicant provided a urine sample during a Unit Urinalysis Inspection (UUI), which tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active chemical in marijuana. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 2 March 2016, for positive urinalysis, reflects the applicant was informed the positive result is grounds for disciplinary action, administrative separation, and a bar to reenlistment. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 15 March 2016, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative action. 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 mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. Field Grade Article 15, dated 28 April 2016, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 17 January and 16 February 2016). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended), and extra duty for 30 days. Orders 309-0009, dated 5 November 2015, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and released from active duty on 11 March 2016 and transferred to the U. S. Army Reserve Control Group, Reinforcement. The orders were amended on 12 January 2016 to read the REFRAD date was changed to 11 June 2016. On 8 June 2016, the orders were revoked or rescinded. The applicant provided Madigan Healthcare System Endoscopy Center Colonoscopy Results, dated 9 June 2016, reflecting the following impressions: One 6 millimeter polyp in the distal sigmoid colon. Resected and retrieved; Non-bleeding internal hemorrhoids; The examination was otherwise normal. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Report of Medical History, dated 16 March 2016, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: The applicant received counseling at Embedded Behavioral Health (EBH) for adjustment disorder, anxiety, and depression from May 2013 to present. The applicant still has some sleep trouble associated with anxiety and depression. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical History as described in previous paragraph 4j(1). Report of Medical Examination, dated 16 March 2016, the examining medical physician noted in the summary of defects and diagnoses section: Adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety features. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; two DD Forms 293; self-authored statement; Madigan Healthcare System Endoscopy Center Colonoscopy; separation documents; separation orders; résumé. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has been a productive member of the community. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12c(2) terms abuse of illegal drugs as serious misconduct. It continues; however, by recognizing relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct and processed for separation under paragraph 14- 12a or 14-12b as appropriate. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (drug abuse). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Drug Abuse)," and the separation code is "JKK." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends anxiety, depression, and adjustment disorder affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation which supports the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder, anxiety, and depression. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 15 March 2016, which indicates 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 mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with negative results. The MSE did not indicate a diagnosis. The applicant underwent a medical examination on 16 March 2016, in which the examining physician indicated the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety features. The MSE and medical examination were considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the VA has granted a service-connected disability for PTSD. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. The applicant contends harassment by members of the unit. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant was told the applicant would be able to meet the expiration term of service (ETS) without the issue following the applicant. There is no evidence in the AMHRR, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. The applicant contends another Soldier with a similar offense and discharge had an entry on the Soldier's DD Form 214 indicating the Soldier had completed the first full term of service. The applicant did not request a change to the entry made on the applicant's DD Form 214; however, this change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within this board's purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. 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 will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends being a productive member of the community. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The applicant'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: Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found evidence of significant anxiety and depression documented in medical records while on active duty. (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 has evidence of noteworthy mood and anxiety issues under multiple diagnoses while on active duty and is service connected for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). There is clear evidence of mitigation for the substance use; self-medication is a common aspect of the natural history and sequelae of significant anxiety and depression. There is a nexus between the substance use and psychiatric functioning at the time of offense. (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 Anxiety and MDD outweighed the basis for separation - wrongful use of marijuana - for the aforementioned reason. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends anxiety, depression, and adjustment disorder affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to Anxiety and MDD mitigating the applicant's misconduct. (2) The applicant contends the VA has granted a service-connected disability for PTSD. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed with service-connected Anxiety and MDD, and the Board determined these BH conditions mitigate the applicant's basis for separation, thus warranting an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. (3) The applicant contends harassment by members of the unit. 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 Anxiety and MDD outweighing the applicant's wrongful marijuana use basis for separation. (4) The applicant was told the applicant would be able to meet the expiration term of service (ETS) without the issue following the applicant. 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 Anxiety and MDD outweighing the applicant's wrongful marijuana use basis for separation. (5) The applicant contends another Soldier with a similar offense and discharge had an entry on the Soldier's DD Form 214 indicating the Soldier had completed the first full term of service. 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 Anxiety and MDD outweighing the applicant's wrongful marijuana use basis for separation. (6) The applicant contends good service. 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 Anxiety and MDD outweighing the applicant's wrongful marijuana use basis for separation. (7) 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. (8) The applicant contends being a productive member of the community. 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 Anxiety and MDD outweighing the applicant's wrongful marijuana use basis for separation. c. The Board determined that the applicant's Anxiety and MDD outweighed the basis for separation - wrongful use of marijuana - thus, warranting relief. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's Anxiety and MDD outweighed the basis for separation - wrongful use of marijuana. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The 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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change 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 AR20210002175 1