1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change and reinstatement of rank and pay grade. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, suffering from diagnosed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) prior to the discharge which was a mitigating factor affecting the ability to serve. The applicant started to using marijuana, attempting to self-medicate. The applicant self- referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for treatment and was concurred by the leadership. The applicant states the command was giving out many “Pink Slip” discharges, instead of the correct discharges. The applicant states the command refused to follow the recommendation of the applicant’s Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) proceeding/finding. The applicant is also requesting rank of Specialist / E-4 be reinstated. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 22 September 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Drug Rehabilitation Failure / AR 635-200, Chapter 9 / JPC / RE-4 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 3 November 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 October 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant self-enrolled in the ASAP on 10 May 2011 for marijuana use. On 13 May 2011, the applicant tested positive for marijuana and disclosed to ASAP counselor using marijuana between 2 July and 17 July 2011. The applicant failed to attend regularly scheduled sessions since 24 August 2011. After careful consideration, the commander determined with the applicant’s rehabilitation team further attempts are not practical, and the applicant is a drug rehabilitation failure. Furthermore, the applicant failed to go to appointed place of duty on 3 November 2010, and 25 and 30 April, 6,10 and 17 May, and 25 July 2011. (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: On18 October 2011, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 18 October 2011, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 October 2011 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 August 2010 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91D10, Power-Generation Equipment Repairer / 7 years, 2 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 10 August 2004 – 18 August 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (3 March 2005 – 21 February 2006; 26 October 2006 – 13 January 2008; 4 February 2009 – 28 January 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-4CS, ARCOM-2, AAM, MUC, AGCM-2, NDSM, ASR, OSR-3 g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 31 May 2011, for failure to go to appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (on or between 3 November 2010 and 25 April 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $455 pay; extra duty for 14 days and oral reprimand. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 27 July 2011, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 31 May 2011, was vacated for: Article 86, failure to go to appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. Summary of Army Substance Abuse Program Rehabilitation Failure (memo), dated 30 September 2011, reflects the applicant’s rehabilitation team met on 13 May 2011, and determined the applicant had not made satisfactory progress toward achieving the criteria for successful rehabilitation as outlined in AR 600-85, paragraph 3-2 and 3-3. Further rehabilitation efforts in a military environment were not justified considering the applicant’s lack of progress. Discharge from military service should be effected. CG Article 15, dated 6 October 2011, for failure to go to appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (on or between 9 and 20 September 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $383 pay (suspended); extra duty for 14 days. Developmental Counseling Forms, for failing to report an act of misconduct. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 2 November 2011, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 6 October 2011, was vacated for: Article 86, failure to go to appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Applicant Provided and/or AMHRR Listed PTSD / TBI / Other Behavioral Health Conditions: The applicant contends PTSD on the applicant’s DA Form 293. 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 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 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 “JPC” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for drug rehabilitation failure. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests a narrative reason change and reinstatement of rank and pay grade. 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 11 October 2011, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/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 being diagnosed with PTSD and going through a MEB before discharge. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention of PTSD or MEB proceeding. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of any mental health diagnosis. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the command was giving out many “Pink Slip” discharges, instead of the correct discharges. The applicant provided no evidence, other than the statement, to support the contention of “Pink Slip” discharges. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the reinstatement of rank and pay grade should be granted. The applicant’s request does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, and Depression. (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 Depression, Adjustment Disorder and PTSD and is service connected by the VA for the PTSD. (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/Depression and self-medicating with substances, there was likely some association between his BH conditions and the rehabilitation failure that led to his separation. Also, there is a nexus between PTSD and avoidance, so there was likely some association between PTSD and the multiple FTRs. It is the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor that applicant’s narrative reason for separation is appropriate. (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 and depression outweighed the ASAP failure basis for separation, however, the medical record shows the applicant was enrolled in ASAP and he did fail to meet the conditions of the rehabilitation. Therefore, the narrative reason of Drug Rehabilitation Failure is accurate. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD and going through an MEB before discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an Honorable discharge from a prior ARBA Board, further relief was not warranted. (2) The applicant contends the command was giving out many “Pink Slip” discharges, instead of the correct discharges. The Board considered this contention and determined that there is no evidence in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant, other than the applicant’s statement, that the Command acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Therefore, the applicant’s discharge is proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends the reinstatement of rank and pay grade should be granted. The Board determined that the applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (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 AR20210002572 1