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, the applicant requests an upgrade because the applicant desires a better life by using the GI Bill to attend school. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 23 February 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the characterization was improper. The record shows the government introduced into the discharge packet the results of a biochemical test which was coded RO (Rehabilitation Testing) and that it was part of the applicant's Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) treatment plan. The inclusion of the test administered as part of the applicant's rehabilitation program is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85 and is protected evidence. Use of this information mandates award of an honorable characterization of service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. However, 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 (Drug Abuse) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 28 January 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 January 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant tested positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) during a company urinalysis on 5 October and 14 October 2015. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 January 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 March 2013 / 3 years, 28 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 25Q10, Multichannel Transmission Systems Operator-Maintainer / 2 years, 10 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, KDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Law Enforcement Report - 1st Corrected Final, dated 10 June 2015, reflects an investigation established the applicant committed the offense of Driving Under the Influence with personal injury when a deputy from the Richmond County Sheriff's office, while on routine patrol, observed a motorcycle traveling at a high rate of speed. The deputy attempted to initiate a traffic stop and the motorcycle made several evasive maneuvers in the attempt to elude the deputy. The applicant struck the passenger side of a vehicle. A trooper smelled a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from the applicant and the applicant failed the field sobriety tests. The applicant was treated for the injuries and arrested for driving under the influence. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 31 May 2015, for being arrested for driving under the influence. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Background Check, undated reflects: On 1 May 2014, the applicant was enrolled in ASAP by command referral for alcohol misuse and diagnosed with alcohol dependence. On 20 October 2014, the applicant was released from ASAP for satisfactory performance. On 1 June 2015, the applicant was enrolled in ASAP, because of driving while impaired and diagnosed with alcohol dependence. On 30 September 2015, the applicant tested positive for THC (marijuana) during rehabilitation testing. On 5 and 14 October 2015, the applicant tested positive for THC (marijuana) during an inspection random and unit sweep. Report of Medical Examination, dated 21 September 2015, the examining medical physician noted in the summary of defects and diagnoses section: Depression; history of alcohol abuse; and chronic insomnia. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 October 2015, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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 600-85 defines the Limited Use Policy and states unless waived under the circumstances listed in paragraph 10-13d, Limited Use Policy prohibits the use by the government of protected evidence against a Soldier in actions under the UCMJ or on the issue of characterization of service in administrative proceedings. Additionally, the policy limits the characterization of discharge to "Honorable" if protected evidence is used. Protected evidence under this policy includes the results of a drug or alcohol test administered solely as a required part of a DoD or Army SUD treatment program. e. 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) Paragraph 3-8a states A Soldier is entitled to an honorable characterization of service if limited-use evidence (see AR 600-85) is initially introduced by the Government in the discharge proceedings, and the discharge is based upon those proceedings. The separation authority will consult with the servicing Judge Advocate in cases involving limited use evidence. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) 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. f. 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). g. 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 an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. 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. 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. (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. Applicant is not diagnosed or service connected by the VA for any BH conditions. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder. Applicant is not diagnosed or service connected by the VA for any BH conditions. As such, there is no evidence of any mitigating BH conditions since an Adjustment Disorder is not a mitigating condition for marijuana use. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's adjustment disorder outweighed the basis for applicant's separation - marijuana abuse - for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): 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. c. The Board determined the characterization was improper. The record shows the government introduced into the discharge packet the results of a biochemical test which was coded RO (Rehabilitation Testing) and that it was part of the applicant's Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) treatment plan. The inclusion of the test administered as part of the applicant's rehabilitation program is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85 and is protected evidence. Use of this information mandates award of an honorable characterization of service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. However, 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 inclusion of the applicant's results of a biochemical test administered as part of the applicant's rehabilitation program is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85 and is protected evidence. Use of this information mandates award of an honorable characterization of service. 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 AR20210002403 1