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 honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, it was unfair to be kicked out of the service for the applicant's first offense when repeat offenders were allowed to remain in the service. The applicant had a great military career until the costly mistake. The applicant was discharged from the Army because of drug abuse. At the time leading up to the misconduct, the applicant was coping with heavy life pressures pertaining to the applicant's parents' health issues. The applicant was under intense stress, which caused the applicant to make the unwise decision. On Christmas Day 2013, the applicant experienced one of the most shocking days of the applicant's life. The applicant's parent had a seizure. The applicant was able to save the parent because of the applicant's combat lifesaving training. This day had a drastic impact on the applicant. The applicant's parent recovered, but the applicant did not want to return to Fort Drum and leave the parent in Georgia in the hospital. The applicant returned to the unit, contacted the chain of command, and met with the first sergeant (1SG) to discuss options. The applicant visited the doctor for mental health assistance and was diagnosed after later visits. With the doctor's assistance, the applicant was reassigned to Fort Stewart / Hunter Army Airfield to be closer to home and care for the applicant's parents, both of whom were suffering from cancer. The applicant was in a good unit and in a better place to care for the parents. A few days after Thanksgiving, the applicant received another traumatizing experience. The applicant walked into the bathroom to find the parent slumped over on the toilet, passed out. While waiting for the ambulance, the applicant attempted to assist the parent. The ambulance arrived, revived the parent, and the parent was transported to the hospital. The next day, the applicant made a mistake by smoking marijuana. The applicant's emotions were like a roller coaster and not getting enough sleep led to the applicant attempting to cope with the problems by self-medicating. The applicant made a terrible mistake and cannot take it back but can prove the applicant learned a lesson. Since the incident, the applicant has used it as motivation to pursue the applicant's goals. The mistakes do not define the applicant, but how the applicant reacts to them does define the applicant. The misconduct was a poor lapse of judgment. This was an isolated incident which cost the applicant the career but should not overthrow the fact the applicant was a good, valued Soldier and an asset to the Army. The applicant knows the applicant made a terrible mistake by smoking marijuana, which is against the Army standards, but the applicant excelled at the Army standards in many other areas. The applicant accepted all the punishments and paid all the dues, but the applicant was still unable to climb back up the ranks and prove to be a worthy Soldier. The applicant requests this letter and supporting documents be considered and the applicant be granted an upgrade to honorable and all the benefits the applicant courageously earned. The applicant further details the contentions in the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 12 January 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD diagnosis). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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 (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 14 July 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 May 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between 5 November and 5 December 2014, the applicant wrongfully used marijuana, a scheduled I controlled substance. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The Commander's Report reflects the immediate commander recommended retention, but other comments on the document are inconsistent with the recommendation. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 2 June 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 June 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 January 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 3 years, 5 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 11 December 2014, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 98 (marijuana), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 5 December 2014. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 12 December 2014, testing positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). A FG Article 15, dated 28 January 2015, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 5 November and 5 December 2015). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $773 pay per month for two months; and extra duty for 45 days. Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Report of Investigation - Initial Final, dated 5 March 2015, dated 2 March 2015, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Use of a Controlled Substance when the applicant submitted a urine specimen on 5 December 2014, during the conduct of a unit urinalysis test, which subsequently tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol, the main component in marijuana. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 April 2015, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions 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 had been screened for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with negative results. The AXIS I, II, and III medical diagnoses were documented in Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) in accordance AR 40-66. The applicant provided a copy of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) letter, dated 25 February 2020, reflecting a board certified psychiatrist was providing treatment for service-connected PTSD. The applicant was enrolled full-time at Wiregrass Technical College as a student working towards a business degree. The applicant provided a copy of VA letter, dated 31 January 2022, reflecting the applicant was rated 70 percent service-connected disability for PTSD and 100 percent combined rating. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; two DD Forms 293; self-authored statement; military service awards and training certificates; Hagel Memo; Kurta Memo; college transcripts; 2A shipping Wal-Mart DC 6010 Commendation Award; Ambitious Young Men Flyer; Georgia Criminal History Search; Controlled Substance Test; Greater Destiny International Ministries Tithes payments; VA letters; High School Diploma; third party character references; ADRB Case Report and Directive excerpt; Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings excerpt. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant provided evidence reflecting the applicant attained a technical certificate for commercial truck driving; is pursuing an Associate's degree in business management; and volunteered in 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 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. 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 "JKN" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (minor infractions). 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-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable. 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 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 14-12a, 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 (Minor Infractions)," and the separation code is "JKN." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. The SPD 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. The 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 14-12a, is "JKN." The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. 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. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior which led to the discharge and being diagnosed by the VA with PTSD. The applicant provided medical documents indicating the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and the VA rated the applicant 70 percent service- connected disability for PTSD and 100 percent combined rating. The applicant's AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 23 April 2015, 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 MSE indicates the AXIS I, II, and III medical diagnoses were documented in Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) in accordance AR 40-66. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends other Soldiers with similar offenses were allowed to remain in the Army. Applicable regulations state each case must be decided on an individual basis, considering the unique facts and circumstances of the particular case. The applicant contends good service. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran's benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends attaining a technical certificate for commercial truck driving; pursuing an Associate's degree in Business Management; and volunteering in 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good military service and good conduct after leaving the Army. 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: PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, and Anxiety. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder and 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 diagnosis of Anxiety existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between PTSD and self-medicating with substances, there may have been some association between applicant's PTSD and the marijuana use that led to applicant's separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the marijuana use basis for separation 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 narrative reason for discharge is appropriate as the applicant was separated for misconduct, which was mitigated not excused. Therefore, the Board agreed the applicant's narrative reason for discharge is proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant received the appropriate SPD code for the discharge specified by AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2) is "JKK." Therefore, no change is warranted. (3) The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The Board considered this contention and voted to maintain the RE-code to a 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. (4) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior which led to the discharge and being diagnosed by the VA with PTSD. The Board considered this contention during proceedings and voted to upgrade the characterization of service based on the applicant's PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's marijuana use basis for separation. (5) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. 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 PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's marijuana use basis for separation. (6) The applicant contends other Soldiers with similar offenses were allowed to remain in the Army. The Board considered this contention and the applicant's PTSD diagnosis, however the Board determined that there is insufficient evidence provided in the files to support this claim. Ultimately, the Board determined that an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's marijuana use basis for separation. (7) The applicant contends good service. 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. (8) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. (9) The applicant contends attaining a technical certificate for commercial truck driving; pursuing an Associate's degree in Business Management; and volunteering in the community. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant's time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member's discharge characterization. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's marijuana use basis for separation c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD diagnosis). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD mitigated the applicant's misconduct of marijuana. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (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. (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: 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 AR20210002319 1