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 was very young when the applicant joined the military. The applicant made several wrong choices in life which the applicant regrets, including being discharged from the military was one of them. The applicant was going through hard times and the chain of command failed the applicant. The applicant turned to alcohol trying to handle everything the applicant was going through on the applicant’s own and the applicant did not have anyone to show the applicant the right path until it was too late, and the applicant’s military career was over. At the time, the applicant was unaware the applicant could have fought to stay in the military and receive help. The applicant was just afraid. The applicant has grown into the person the applicant was meant to be and desires to rejoin the military to prove it to those the applicant had let down. The applicant has stopped drinking and smoking and is committed to becoming a better person, parent, and Soldier, if allowed to prove it. The applicant believes everyone needs a second chance. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 16 August 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: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 November 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 October 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant did between 1 and 31 July 2012, wrongfully use marijuana. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 October 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The separation approval memorandum reflects someone signed the memorandum for the approving authority. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 October 2010 / 3 years, 22 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 84 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 2 years, 1 month, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 17 August 2012, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 26 (marijuana), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 31 July 2012. FG Article 15, dated 29 August 2012, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 1 and 31 July 2012). The punishment was not annotated on the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ). The punishment was annotated on the Article 15 Punishment Worksheet, which consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $835 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Military Police Report (Blotter) reflects on 21 September 2012, the applicant was arrested by the Hinesville Police Department for driving under the influence with a blood alcohol content of .157; improper lane change; open container; and obstruction of justice. The applicant had a scheduled court date of 10 October 2012. The applicant was released to the Fort Stewart Police. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 1 October 2012, reflects the applicant was driving while intoxicated on 21 September 2012. A breathalyzer test showed the applicant’s blood alcohol content at the time was .157. As a result, the applicant was cited with driving under the influence. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), reflects the applicant was discharged in the grade of E-3 with an effective date of pay as 1 September 2011. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for positive urinalysis and pending separation from service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical Examination, dated 19 September 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the summary of defects and diagnoses section: Headaches; Dizziness; Insomnia; Depression; and Missing the spouse. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 October 2012, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative separation. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. Duress previously experienced had been reduced significantly through support from behavioral health, PA, spouse, and new unit. Servicemember had positive correlation with PTSD, but PCL-M shows significant decrease in emotional trauma symptoms. The applicant had never deployed and did not meet the criteria for a medical board. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and depressed mood; and Alcohol Dependence. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends refraining from drinking and smoking and being committed to becoming a better person, parent, and Soldier. 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 exposed 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. (7) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army’s best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary’s approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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 (drug abuse). 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 contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Drug Abuse),” and the separation code is “JKK.” 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 going through hard times that affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) reflects the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 2 October 2012, which indicates the applicant was cleared for administrative separation. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant had positive correlation with PTSD, but PCL-M shows significant decrease in emotional trauma symptoms. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and depressed mood; and Alcohol Dependence. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. 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 the command failed to assist the applicant with the issues, which led to the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. 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 applicant 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 refraining from drinking and smoking and being committed to becoming a better person, parent, and Soldier if allowed the opportunity to prove it. 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 applicant’s Major Depression condition could potentially mitigate or excuse applicant’s misconduct that lead to applicant’s separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant’s Major Depression existed during applicant’s military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant’s Major Depression does not mitigate applicant’s misconduct that lead to applicant’s discharge. Specifically, marijuana usage is not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with Major Depression, and there is no nexus between applicant’s marijuana use and applicant’s Major Depression as further supported by evidence that applicant has a long history of marijuana use from the age of 13 that predates the military service and any Major Depression related to military service. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the Board’s Medical Advisor’s opine, and voted that the applicant’s Major Depression did not outweigh the unmitigated wrongful drug use that was applicant’s basis for separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The SPD codes and corresponding narrative reasons identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty, and are administratively linked to the reason for separation. These codes and reasons are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. In this case, the Board determined the SPD code and corresponding narrative reason for applicant’s discharge were proper and equitable, and the SPD code and narrative reason are consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Army Regulation. (2) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge, and the command failed to assist the applicant with the issues, which led to 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. Further, the Board considered all the evidence and found that the applicant was not any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. Finally, the Board determined that the applicant’s Command did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner throughout the applicant’s discharge, and therefore this contention does not warrant any change to the applicant’s discharge. (3) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. The Board determined that recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes, if appropriate. (4) The applicant contends refraining from drinking and smoking and being committed to becoming a better person, parent, and Soldier if allowed the opportunity to prove it. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, no law or regulation provides an unfavorable discharge that must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board may consider the outstanding post-service conduct and the applicant’s performance and conduct during the service under review during proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate that previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. In this case, the Board decided this contention does not warrant any change to the applicant’s discharge, and the discharge was proper and equitable. c. The Board determined 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 applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, the Board voted that the applicant’s Major Depression did not outweigh the unmitigated drug abuse that was the underlying basis for applicant’s separation. The Board further considered the totality of the circumstances including applicant’s contentions but also applicant’s misconduct of a DUI, and voted that the discharge was both proper and equitable. The Board found the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (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 AR20210002616 1