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’s discharge should be upgraded because of honorable service, before suffering from behavior health conditions and self- medicating from conditions diagnosed while in the service. The applicant earned an Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM), Global War on Terrorism Service Medal (GWOTSM), and Army Achievement Medal (AAM), before behavior health issues. The applicant was confined because of false accusations and was in a twenty-three hour maximum security custody until discharged. The applicant was diagnosed with mental conditions including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and schizoaffective disorder. An upgrade would allow the applicant to receive medical care and VA benefits. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 18 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: Court-Martial (Other) / AR 635-200, Chapter 3 / JJD / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 October 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Pursuant to Special Court-Martial Empowered to Adjudge a Bad-Conduct Discharge: As announced by Special Court-Martial Order Number 18, dated 16 December 2010, reflects on 21 June 2010, the applicant was found guilty of the following: Charge I: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, Specification: On 12 November and 17 November 2009, for fail to go at the time prescribed of appointed place of duty. Charge IV: Violating Article 92, UCMJ, Specifications: On 2 November 2009, for violating a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully filling specimen bottle with a liquid other than the applicant’s own urine during a lawful drug test. Charge V: Violating Article 112a, UCMJ, Specification: On 29 July 2009 and 27 August 2009, wrongfully use marijuana. The Additional Charge: Violation of Article 112a, UCMJ, Specification: On 21 October 2009 and 20 November 2009, wrongfully used marijuana. (2) Adjudged Sentence: Reduction to E-1; to be confined for 6 months, and to be discharged from the service with a Bad Conduct discharge. (3) Date / Sentence Approved: 16 December 2010 / The sentence was approved and except for part of the sentence extending to a bad-conduct discharge, would be executed. The accused would be credited with 223 days of confinement against the sentence to confinement. (4) Appellate Reviews: The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of The Army for review by the Court of Military Review. The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence. (5) Date Sentence of BCD Ordered Executed: 1 September 2011 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 September 2006 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / One-year college / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 4 years, 6 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Special Court-Martial Order as described in previous paragraph 3c. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Confined by Military Authorities (CMA),” effective date: 4 December 2009; From “CCA” to “PDY,” effective date: 21 June 2010. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 199 days (CMA, 4 December 2009 – 21 June 2010) / Released from Confinement j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health Contained in AMHRR or submitted by applicant: Internal Medicine Discharge Note, dated 26 August 2011, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder. The applicant provided an Integrated Treatment Plan, dated 16 October 2015, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, unspecified. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; medical records; copies of military personnel records; self-authored statement. 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), dated 25 September 2019, 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for separation specifically allows such characterization. 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 “JJD” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 3, Court-Martial (other). 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: 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 Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a Special Court-Martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. The applicant contends suffering from behavior health issues and self-medicating for conditions diagnosed while in the service, which affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains no documentation of any mental health diagnosis. The applicant provided medical documents indicating a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and PTSD, unspecified. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits 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 good service. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. 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 the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: Schizoaffective Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, ADHD. Applicant asserts PTSD in self-authored statement. (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 Schizoaffective Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and ADHD. Applicant is also service connected for Schizoaffective Disorder. Applicant asserts PTSD in a self-authored statement. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between Schizoaffective Disorder and self-medicating with substances, it is more likely than not that applicant’s BH condition contributed to a wrongful use of marijuana. Also, given that serious impairment in daily functioning is also associated with Schizoaffective Disorder, there was likely an association between the applicant’s Schizoaffective Disorder and FTRs. However, Board Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, ADHD, and asserted PTSD do not mitigate the applicant’s violating a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully filling specimen bottle with a liquid other than the applicant’s own urine during a lawful drug test because there is no nexus between this misconduct and any of the applicant’s BH conditions. (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 that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Schizoaffective Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, ADHD or asserted PTSD outweighed the medically unmitigated offense of violating a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully filling specimen bottle with a liquid other than the applicant’s own urine during a lawful drug test. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends suffering from behavior health issues and self-medicating for conditions diagnosed while in the service, which affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention and found evidence linking 4x drug uses to BH conditions, which mitigated and warranted partial relief. However, due to the serious nature of falsifying a UA result and the intention act of planning behind it, no further relief is warranted. (2) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. 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. (3) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record and determined that a discharge upgrade is not warranted as the applicant’s total service did not outweigh the applicant’s violating a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully filling specimen bottle with a liquid other than the applicant’s own urine during a lawful drug test. 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 applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Schizoaffective Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, ADHD or asserted PTSD did not outweigh the medically unmitigated offenses violating a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully filling specimen bottle with a liquid other than the applicant’s own urine during a lawful drug test. The Board considered the applicant’s contentions relating to the applicant’s good service and the applicant’s behavior health conditions and determined that the totality of the applicant’s record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s General Discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable Discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, 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 AR20210002670 1