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 served in Bravo Company, 127th Aviation Support Battalion, 4th Brigade, 1st Armored Division in Hanau, Germany. The applicant enlisted before 9/11 under the Delayed Entry Program. When the applicant saw those planes fly into the Twin Towers, the applicant was overcome with sadness, fear, and pride for what the applicant was about to face. As soon as the applicant arrived in Germany, the applicant knew the applicant was going to Iraq. The unit prepared for a year. The applicant was standing in the desert one year and two days after touching down in Germany. The applicant was prepared to lay down the applicant's life. The applicant served with some great Soldiers who are still part of the applicant's life today and the applicant served under some wonderful leaders who taught the applicant so much. The unit was extended while there for another three months after serving the year-long deployment. The applicant returned from Iraq and the Army sent the unit through a cattle call of doctors asking, "Are you okay? Do you want to hurt yourself?" While the applicant did not want to commit self-harm, the applicant was not ready for the emotions the applicant was dealing with. Upon returning from Iraq, the applicant partied all the time, smoked marijuana, took some pills, and drank heavily. The applicant failed a urinalysis, and the Army was ready to part ways with the applicant immediately, ready to throw the applicant out like a piece of trash. The Army sent the applicant to war and disregarded the applicant when the mission was done. Never once was the applicant asked, "What caused you to do this; Do you need help?" The applicant was a great Soldier and loved the Army. The applicant broke the rules and suffered the consequences. The applicant served 45 days of extra duty and forfeited half of the applicant's pay for two months. When the applicant arrived at the unit, there was a Soldier who had failed multiple urinalysis and was able to stay in. It is supposed to be an Army of One, a family. The applicant does not turn the back on family when a mistake is made. The applicant did not hurt anyone but the applicant. That shame has affected the applicant to this very day. The applicant could have been salvaged and remained a valuable part of the military but was not. The applicant married, had children, and picked up the applicant's life after discharge. The applicant does not have any documentation from a doctor or psychiatrist explaining the reasons for the applicant's actions, but the applicant was a young Soldier who was trying to party away insecurities and cope with what the applicant experienced in the desert. Being the person, the applicant is today, the applicant would have asked to talk to someone, but the applicant did not. Instead, the applicant self-medicated. The applicant states having served more than 80 percent of the enlistment and was separated five months before the expiration term of service (ETS) date. The upgrade would allow the applicant the opportunity to use the G.I. Bill to pursue a degree while working a full-time job. The applicant served the country proudly. The applicant made a mistake in the applicant's youth, and the applicant believes the applicant should not have to be punished for life. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 11 August 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined after applying liberal consideration the Board determined the applicant's discharge was inequitable based on the totality of the applicant's service record, including the potential medical mitigation for the applicant's asserted PTSD, the length and quality of applicant's service, and the applicant's combat tour, and voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 4 March 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: The applicant provided a memorandum, dated 17 February 2005, which reflects the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 October 2001 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 3 years, 4 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / The Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), ARCOM Certificate and the Recommendation for Award provided by the applicant reflects the applicant was deployed to Kuwait-Iraq (26 April 2003 - 15 April 2004); however, it is not reflected on the DD Form 214, block 18 (remarks). f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, PUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant provided: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 21 September 2004, reflects the applicant tested positive for AMP 1052 MDA 3338 MDMA 64346 (Methylenedioxy-Methamphetamine), during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing, conducted on 28 August 2004. Criminal Investigation Command (CID) Report of Investigation - Initial Final, dated 7 October 2004, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Use and Possession of a Controlled Substance when the applicant submitted a urine specimen on 28 August 2004, during the conduct of a unit urinalysis test, which subsequently tested positive for Methylenedioxy-n-methylamphetamine (Ecstasy) (MDMA). CID Report of Investigation - Initial Final, dated 23 November 2004, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Possession and Use of a Controlled Substance when the applicant submitted a urine specimen on 18 October 2004, during the conduct of a unit urinalysis test, which subsequently tested positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-Marijuana). FG Article 15, dated 5 January 2005, for wrongfully using methylenedioxy- methamphetamine (Ecstasy) (between 24 and 28 August 2004). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $597 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. The Article 15 reads: "See Continuation Sheet" but the continuation sheet is not attached. Memorandum, subject: Mental Status Report for [Applicant], dated 9 February 2005, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was responsible for the applicant's actions and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for positive urinalysis results for Ecstasy on 28 August 2004 and for THC on 18 October 2004. DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), by reason of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; two copies DD Form 293; two copies self- authored statements; facsimile cover sheet; Army Review Boards Agency letter; separation documents; two CID reports; two Developmental Counseling Forms; Recommendation for Award. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends picking the applicant's life up, getting married, and having children. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12c(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. 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 "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-4 applies to a 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 upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant provided a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), by reason of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends mental health issues affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of a mental health diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 9 February 2005, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. 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 other Soldiers with similar offenses were allowed to remain in the Army. Applicable regulations AR 635-200 states each case must be decided on an individual basis, considering the unique facts and circumstances of the particular case. The applicant contends the applicant did not receive any assistance from the command with the applicant's issues. Army Regulation 600-85, paragraph 7-3 entitled voluntary (self) identification and referral, states voluntary (self) ID is the most desirable method of identifying substance use disorder. The individual whose performance, social conduct, interpersonal relations, or health becomes impaired because of these problems has the personal obligation to seek help. Soldiers seeking self-referral for problematic substance use may access services through BH services for a SUD evaluation. The Limited Use Policy exists to encourage Soldiers to proactively seek help. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. 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. The applicant contends picking the applicant's life up, getting married, and having children. 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 and found that the applicant's record do not reflect that the applicant had any behavior health diagnosis. However, the applicant asserts PTSD, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate the applicant's basis of separation - two (2) offenses of Drug use (Ecstasy and Marijuana). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant's self-asserted PTSD is sufficient evidence to establish that the applicant's PTSD existed during military service. (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's asserted PTSD partially mitigates the applicant's drug use (MDMA and Marijuana) as there is a nexus between PTSD and self-medication. However, the Board's Medical Advisor could not determine if the applicant's drug use actually mitigates the applicant's misconduct because, the applicant's self-assertion is insufficient evidence to determine medical mitigation because the applicant's statement lacks specific facts related to the underlying circumstances that led to the applicant's asserted PTSD, the PTSD symptoms the applicant experienced at the time of the applicant's drug use, and the applicant did not provide medical record to corroborate the applicant's asserted PTSD. (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, while the applicant's asserted PTSD partially mitigates the applicant's drug offenses, the applicant's asserted PTSD does not outweigh the applicant's partially mitigated basis of separation - drug use (UA for MDMA and Marijuana) because the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to determine whether the applicant's asserted PTSD actually mitigates the applicant's misconduct. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends mental health issues affected behavior which led to the discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that, while the applicant's asserted PTSD partially mitigates the applicant's drug offenses, the applicant's asserted PTSD does not outweigh the applicant's partially mitigated basis of separation - drug use (UA for MDMA and Marijuana) because the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to determine whether the applicant's asserted PTSD actually mitigates the applicant's misconduct. However, the Board determined the applicant's discharge was inequitable based on the totality of the applicant's service record, including the possible medical mitigation for the applicant's asserted PTSD, the length and quality of applicant's service, and the applicant's combat tour, and voted to grant an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable. (2) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The Board considered this contention, but ultimately did not address the contention because the Board voted to grant a discharge as stated in paragraph 9b(1), above. (3) The applicant contends other Soldiers with similar offenses were allowed to remain in the Army. The Board considered this contention, but ultimately did not address the contention because the Board voted to grant a discharge as stated in paragraph 9b(1), above. (4) The applicant contends the applicant did not receive any assistance from the command with the applicant's issues. The Board considered this contention, but ultimately did not address the contention because the Board voted to grant a discharge as stated in paragraph 9b(1), above. (5) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered this contention, and voted to upgrade the applicant's discharge as stated in paragraph 9b(1), above. (6) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board 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. (7) The applicant contends picking the applicant's life up, getting married, and having children. The Board considered this contention, but ultimately did not address the contention because the Board voted to grant a discharge as stated in paragraph 9b(1), above. c. The Board determined the applicant's discharge was inequitable based on the totality of the applicant's service record, including the potential medical mitigation for the applicant's asserted PTSD, the length and quality of applicant's service, and the applicant's combat tour, and voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3.. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service because, the Board determined the applicant's discharge was inequitable based on the totality of the applicant's service record, including the possible medical mitigation for the applicant's asserted PTSD, the length and quality of applicant's service, and the applicant's combat tour, and voted to grant that the applicant's length and quality of service, to include a combat tour and partially mitigated misconduct, outweighed the applicant's accepted basis of separation - positive UA for MDMA and Marijuana - and granted relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable. (2) The Board voted to change the applicant's reason for discharge to Misconduct changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a (Minor Infractions), and accompanying SPD code to JKN under the same pretexts. (3) The RE code will change to RE-3 under the same pretexts. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: RE-3 e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210002603 1