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, while stationed in Afghanistan, the applicant informed the platoon sergeant of the steroid use but had to wait for the NCO to help with the addiction. A week later the platoon sergeant and the platoon leader escorted the applicant to a quiet place on the compound and when the applicant started talking about the steroid use, the platoon leader read the rights to the applicant. The applicant was flown to Bagram and placed under administrative watch, and a few days later, a urinalysis test was conducted. The applicant’s prior request for treatment was finally granted on the 18 May 2003; however, nothing could be done after the appointment to resolve the situation for continued service. Multiple interviews by the CID agents followed, but each time, the applicant’s previous statements were changed and rewritten. Informing the chain of command of the discrepancies had no effect and informing the platoon sergeant of the steroid use was to avoid the later outcome. The applicant was discharged before any treatment could be rendered by CPT R. S. B., the psychiatrist. The applicant never received the results of the urinalysis, whether positive or negative. The applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge with a JKQ separation code and a reentry code of 3. The applicant is now married to a wonderful person, a Master Sergeant serving in the NC National Guard with over 21 years of service. With great sincerity, humility, and respect, the applicant requests to change the reason for the separation to allow reentering the Army and continue serving the great nation and its people. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 19 January 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 / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 August 2003 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 June 2003 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant wrongfully possessed and used steroids. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 30 June 2003 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 July 2003 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 July 2002 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B2P, Infantryman / 4 years, 5 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 18 February 1999 – 7 July 2002 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (NIF) / The applicant’s AMHRR reflects an ARCOM award for an exceptional meritorious service with Task Force Devil during OEF, Afghanistan from 16 January 2003 to 15 July 2003, and the CIB Orders reflect period of service from 21 January to 31 April 2003, however, the period of combat service is not reflected on the DD Form 214. f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR, ARCOM, AGCM, CIB / The applicant’s AMHRR reflects award of the ARCOM, AGCM, and CIB, however, the awards are not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: November 2001 – October 2002 / Fully Capable November 2002 – June 2003 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 7 June 2003, for wrongfully possessing certain amounts of steroids (Deca Durabolin), a schedule III controlled substance, with the intent to distribute the said substance (between 1 March and 17 May 2003), and wrongfully using steroids (Deca Durabolin) a schedule III controlled substance (between 1 March and 17 May 2003). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 and forfeiture of $874 pay per month for two months. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 16 June 2003, reflects the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative actions and training deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant was diagnosed with an in-service substance abuse (steroids). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; Psychiatrist Letter; and Notification Memorandum. 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 prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, 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 (Serious Offense),” and the separation code is “JKQ.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the 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 the separation code (SPD) should be changed. Separation codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations the SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, is “JKQ.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the 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 SPD code to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends informing the chain of command of the discrepancies with the CID interviews had no effect and informing the platoon sergeant of the steroid use was to avoid the latter outcome leading to the discharge, and the applicant never received the results of the urinalysis, whether positive or negative. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends treatment for the steroid use was finally being granted, but the applicant was discharged before any treatment could be rendered by the psychiatrist. The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service substance abuse (steroids). The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 16 June 2003, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “3.” There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 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? No. The Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found no mitigating BH diagnoses on the applicant. The applicant provided no documents or testimony of a condition or experience, that, when applying liberal consideration, could have excused or mitigated a discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? N/A (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason and its separation code for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that after weighing the totality of the evidence, there were insufficient mitigating factors such that outweighed the applicant’s discharge, thus the discharge is proper and equitable, and no relief is warranted. (2) The applicant contends informing the chain of command of the discrepancies with the CID interviews had no effect and informing the platoon sergeant of the steroid use was to avoid the latter outcome leading to the discharge; and the applicant never received the results of the urinalysis. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant admitted to the use and possession of steroids, and that the applicant did not provide corroborating evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by command. (3) The applicant contends treatment for steroid use was finally being granted, but the applicant was discharged before any treatment could be rendered by the psychiatrist. The Board considered this contention and noted that the MSE psychiatrically cleared the applicant for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. The Board also determined that the applicant’s assertion of pending treatment, absent a mitigating BH condition, does not preclude a Soldier from being separated who has committed acts of misconduct. (4) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. The Board considered this contention and voted to maintain the RE-code at RE-3, which is a waivable code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes, if appropriate. c. The Board determined the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 there were no mitigating factors for the Board to consider. Since the applicant was discharged for wrongful possession and use of steroids, the applicant’s General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is proper and equitable. 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, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210002265 1