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 a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, after deployment the applicant returned to Germany. The applicant began to realize the applicant was suffering from traumatic experiences from the deployment in Kandahar, Afghanistan from 2013 to 2014. The symptoms greatly contributed to the applicant’s misconduct. Trouble sleeping, anger outbursts, anxiety, being constantly on guard, and severe depression became part of the applicant’s daily life. Post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) contributed to the applicant’s inability to effectively cope and eroded the applicant’s Army values and character. The applicant was unprepared to deal with PTSD and the disorder led to the applicant’s actions before the discharge. The applicant enlisted in the service with patriotic intentions; volunteering for Afghanistan and working hard without complaining. The applicant hopes the character references help paint a picture of the type of Soldier the applicant was and the person the applicant was proud of being. The applicant had no prior incidents of misconduct. The applicant benefits from mental health appointments at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and remains on a fitness schedule to cope with PTSD symptoms. Sobriety, fitness, education, church, and spending time with those close to the applicant are a few things which help keep the applicant on track. The applicant is pursuing a business degree through a community college in California and the GI Bill would help tremendously. The applicant does the best to be a good citizen, relative, and significant other. The applicant will continue to remain focused and work diligently towards the applicant’s goals. The applicant is currently 70 percent service-connected disabled through the VA because of the traumatic experiences the applicant had during deployment. The applicant requests the language “drug abuse” be removed from the narrative reason and a psychiatrist be present on the Review Board while the applicant’s case is reviewed. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 9 February 2022, 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, Paragraph 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 20 November 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 October 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On divers occasions between 1 February and 22 March 2015, the applicant wrongfully used heroin, a Schedule I controlled substance. On divers occasions between 1 February and 22 March 2015, the applicant wrongfully introduced some amount of heroin, a Schedule I controlled substance, onto an installation used by the armed forces. On 22 March 2015, the applicant wrongfully possessed .06 grams of heroin, a Schedule I controlled substance. On 23 March 2015, the applicant made a false official statement to Investigator C. D. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 14 October 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 October 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 February 2013 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / 1 Year College / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 9 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (20 August 2013 – 8 April 2014) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Law Enforcement Report – Final /Joint, dated 17 July 2015, reflects investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offenses of: Wrongful Possession of Heroin when the Nuremberg Police arrested the applicant and found the applicant in possession of heroin; Wrongful Use and Introduction of Heroin when the applicant purchased heroin and returned to the barracks and used the heroin in the barracks room on separate occasions; and False Official Statement when the applicant provided a sworn statement which the applicant knew to be false. Summary of Treatment memorandum, dated 4 June 2015, reflects the applicant was treated from alcohol dependence at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center’s Addiction Treatment Facility from 20 April to 29 May 2015. The applicant successfully completed the program on 29 May 2015 and released was back to the outpatient Army Substance Abuse Program for continued care. Field Grade Article 15, dated 4 August 2015, for: With intent to deceive, make a false official statement to Investigator C. D. (23 March 2015); Wrongfully possess .06 grams of heroin, a Schedule I controlled substance (22 March 2015); On divers occasions, wrongfully introduce some amount of heroin, a Schedule I controlled substance, onto an installation used by the armed forces (between 1 February and 22 March 2015); and On divers occasions, wrongfully use heroin, a Schedule I controlled substance (between 1 February and 22 March 2015). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $773 pay; and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Three Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 3 September 2015, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: The applicant was being treated for substance abuse and an adjustment disorder. The applicant was under the care of Adult Behavioral Health. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 September 2015, reflects the applicant was cleared for chapter 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 with a positive result and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with a negative result. 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. The applicant was diagnosed with opioid dependence, in remission. The applicant provided a copy of VA letter, dated 10 August 2016, reflecting the applicant was rated 70 percent service-connected disability for PTSD and 10 percent for tinnitus. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 149; DD Form 293, self-authored statement; four third-party character references; VA letters; Hagel Memo; electronic mail message. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends being a good citizen; pursuing a degree at a community college in California; and focusing on sobriety, fitness, church, education, and spending time with family and friends. 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 14-12c(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 a 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 a narrative reason change. The applicant’s record of service, 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 honorable 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 being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA and PTSD affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant provided letters from the VA indicating the applicant was rated 70 percent service-connected disability for PTSD. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 23 September 2015, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The applicant tested positive for PTSD, but the condition was either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The MSE reflects the applicant was diagnosed with opioid dependence, in remission. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. 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 third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good military service. 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 being a good citizen; pursuing a degree at a community college; and focusing on sobriety, church, and spending time with family and friends. 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 requests a psychiatrist be present on the Review Board while the applicant’s case is being reviewed. Statutory and regulatory guidance provides the 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. 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, Unspecified Psychotic Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and personal history of TBI. (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. There is no evidence that applicant's post-service diagnoses of Unspecified Psychotic Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, or history of TBI existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD, which provides partial mitigation. Given the nexus between PTSD and self-medicating with substances, applicant’s PTSD may have contributed to the heroin use and possession charges. However, there is no natural sequela between PTSD and making a false official statement. While liberal consideration is applied, applicant already has an HD. It is the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor that the narrative reason and RE Code are appropriate. (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, Unspecified Psychotic Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and personal history of TBI outweighed the narrative reasson for applicant’s separation – wrongfully used heroin, introduced some amount of heroin onto an installation used by the armed forces more than once, possessed .06 grams of heroin, and made a false official statement to an investigator – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge is appropriate as the applicant did have cocaine drug abuse as the basis of separation that while mitigated did not wholly excuse the applicant’s drug use and introduction of the drug onto a Military Installation. The applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (2) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA and PTSD affected behavior which led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant already holds an Honorable Discharge, and further relief was not warranted. (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 being a good citizen; pursuing a degree at a community college; and focusing on sobriety, church, and spending time with family and friends. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant already holds an Honorable Discharge, further relief was not warranted. (6) The applicant requests a psychiatrist be present on the Review Board while the applicant’s case is being reviewed. The Board considered this contention and in this case the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, is a psychiatrist. The Board considered this contention and determined the Medical Advisor is qualified to advise the Board on the Behavioral Health concerns of the applicant. The applicant was properly and equitably discharged. 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 characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable as the applicant’s PTSD mitigated but did not entirely excuse the applicant’s responsibility for the misconduct of drug abuse and introduction of heroin onto a military installation. (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 AR20210002250 1