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 an upgrade to the narrative reason and an RE code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge is listed as an ASAP failure and stops the applicant from reenlistment. At the time of the incident, the applicant was 22 years old, on emergency leave for a grandparent who was in hospice, and just returned from Afghanistan a few months prior. The applicant was coping with undiagnosed PTSD and smoked marijuana. This was a very challenging time, and the applicant did not know how to handle stresses at a young age without alcohol. Currently, the applicant is a parent and completely sober. The applicant served honorably for five years and would like an upgrade and RE Code change to reenlist. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 February 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: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure / AR 635-200, Chapter 9 / JPD / RE-4 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 19 September 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 August 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: the applicant is being discharged for alcohol or other drug abuse rehabilitation failure. On or about 11 April 2014, the applicant was referred to ASAP and successfully completed the program requirements on 16 May 2014. The applicant had a subsequent alcohol or drug related incident which resulted in a referral to ASAP on 19 June 2014, due to a wrongful use of marijuana between on or about 9 May 2014 and on or about 9 June 2014. IAW AR 600-85, Para 8-13, a Soldier must be separated if an alcohol or drug related incident of misconduct occurs during the 12-month period following removal from the program, for any reason. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 August 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 12 August 2014, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 February 2013 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / High School Graduate / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 91D20, Power-Generation Equipment / 5 years, 2 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 29 July 2008 – 13 July 2009 / NA RA, 14 July 2009 – 3 August 2011 / HD RA, 4 August 2011 – 21 February 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (12 December 2012 – 22 August 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM-5, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 24 August 2013, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Public Intoxication (off post). Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 18 June 2014, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 37 (marijuana), during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing, conducted on 9 June 2014. Summary of Army Substance Abuse Program Rehabilitation Failure (memo), dated 23 June 2014, reflects the applicant’s rehabilitation team met on 19 June 2014, and determined the applicant had not made satisfactory progress toward achieving the criteria for successful rehabilitation as outlined in AR 600-85, para 3-2 and 3-3. Further rehabilitation efforts in a military environment were not justified in light of the applicant’s lack of progress. Discharge from military service should be effected. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 July 2014, 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 PTSD and 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. FG Article 15, dated 25 July 2014, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 9 May and 9 June 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1,164 pay (suspended); and extra duty 45 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided medical records dated 13 September 2013, which reflect, a diagnosis of PTSD Chronic; Cannabis dependence, and Uncomplicated and Unspecified mood affective disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293 and medical records. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states being a parent and being completely sober. 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 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. (4) Paragraph 9-4, stipulates the service of Soldiers discharged under this section will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required. An honorable discharge is mandated in any case in which the Government initially introduces into the final discharge process limited use evidence as defined by AR 600–85. e. 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-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 waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 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 RE code change. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) indicates on 19 June 2014, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. The applicant did not have the potential for continued military service because the level of need for medication management and length of treatment exceeded what was available in the Active-Duty Army. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200 with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “alcohol rehabilitation failure,” and the separation code is “JPD.” 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 coping with undiagnosed PTSD. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 9 July 2014, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command and screened for PTSD and mTBI with negative results. The applicant provided medical records dated 13 September 2013 which reflects, a diagnosis of PTSD Chronic; Cannabis dependence, and Uncomplicated and unspecified mood affective disorder. 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, 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 youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change and 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 601-210, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “4.” An RE code of “4” cannot be waived, and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The applicant contends being a parent and being completely sober. 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. 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: Adjustment Disorder, Chronic PTSD, and Unspecified Mood Disorder. (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 the applicant self-asserts having PTSD at the time of military service. Post service, the VA has diagnosed applicant with Chronic PTSD and Unspecified Mood Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder, and self-asserts having PTSD at the time of military service. Post service, the VA has diagnosed applicant with Chronic PTSD and Unspecified Mood Disorder. Applicant’s self-asserted PTSD should was considered by the Board given the nexus between PTSD and self-medicating with substances. However, there is no medical evidence to support that applicant’s Chronic PTSD existed during military service or is connected to military service. Instead, applicant’s PTSD was formally diagnosed post-service, and the VA has evaluated applicant and determined that the PTSD is not service-connected. Furthermore, the medical record reveals that applicant was using marijuana with friends to have fun despite knowing the inherent risks of this conscious decision. Therefore, it is the Board Medical Advisor’s opinion that applicant’s PTSD did not contribute to the Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure and no further upgrade to the applicant’s discharge is warranted. (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 Adjustment Disorder, Chronic PTSD, and Unspecified Mood Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – marijuana use resulting in ASAP failure – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined the medical record reveals that applicant was using marijuana with friends to have fun despite knowing the inherent risks of this conscious decision. Therefore, there were no grounds warranting an upgrade to the applicant’s discharge. (2) The applicant contends coping with undiagnosed PTSD. The Board considered this contention and determined that there is no medical evidence to support that applicant’s PTSD existed during military service or is connected to military service. Instead, applicant’s PTSD was formally diagnosed post-service, and the VA has evaluated applicant and determined that the PTSD is not service-connected. (3) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant was determined an ASAP failure, therefore could not be in isolated incident since there had to be two incident – incident requiring ASAP referral, which the applicant completed the program, and following marijuana use which caused the ASAP failure. AR 600-85, Para 8-13, a Soldier must be separated if an alcohol or drug related incident of misconduct occurs during the 12-month period following removal from the program, for any reason. (4) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not excuse the misconduct. There is insufficient evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined the medical record reveals that applicant was using marijuana with friends to have fun despite knowing the inherent risks of this conscious decision. Therefore, there were no grounds warranting an upgrade to the applicant’s discharge. (5) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By intentionally using marijuana even though the risks to career were known, the applicant diminished the quality of service at the time of separation. (6) The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change and desires to rejoin the Military Service. The Board voted maintain the RE-code as a RE-4. The applicant is not eligible for reenlistment. (7) The applicant contends being a parent and being completely sober. 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’s post-service conduct did not outweigh the propriety of the applicant’s current discharge characterization or narrative reason. 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 in accordance with AR 600-85, Para 8-13, a Soldier must be separated if an alcohol or drug related incident of misconduct occurs during the 12-month period following removal from the program, for any reason. The reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. Furthermore, medical record reveals that applicant was using marijuana with friends to have fun despite knowing the inherent risks of this conscious decision. (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 AR20210002340 1