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, it has been six years since the discharge for failing a random urinalysis, after returning from a one-year combat tour in Iraq. The applicant was not clearly informed of receiving less than honorable discharge. The Iraq tour was a "horrible stormy period" of the applicant's life, which plagued the applicant in the form of "memories, sights, smells, tastes, physical deterioration, [and] injury," the "consequences of choices and actions." The applicant was forced into doing things the applicant wished never having to experience again. The applicant needed time and a way of coping with the daily plague of "crazy nightmares, thoughts, and wild racing brain." The applicant's coping mechanism was simply by dancing with friends, using loud music, and using a substance, "MDMA," a substance literally being used "to help treat PTSD and anxiety in war veterans," and being "surrounded by pretty, gentle things, while not being completely cut-off cold turkey from what plagued" the applicant. Upon becoming a "Licensed Massage Therapist," the applicant learned and understood "'Everyone is Different,'" as each treatment is unique. The applicant details in length the enlistment and experiences, such as from day one, the applicant "was conned into joining something false," lied to throughout, cheated out of the $50,000 enlistment bonus, of which $30,000 were to be paid in increments of $10,000 per year for three years, and none were paid even after making multiple requests with the assistance of the applicant's sergeants. The applicant's experience of suddenly being separated from the core of a platoon in Iraq who trained together, which caused a member to become a casualty when dispatched to help defend a camp. After redeploying from Iraq, the segregation of the units became even more destructive. The applicant became alone and isolated when the platoon and the unit were ripped apart. They would have understood everything the applicant was going through and would have helped the applicant "re-assimilate." It was impossible for the applicant to cope and acclimate into a civilian world and non-war time action. Some members of the unit took to the bottle and "de-stressed with violence" against loved ones. Many were also protected from UCMJ actions and allowed to receive promotions. The applicant asserts having to cope off-duty and doing what worked for the applicant without hurting anyone or having it affect the performance, led to the single event of failing a urinalysis. The applicant coped the best way by a coping mechanism therapy, which kept "the lid on [the] PTSD, stress, depression, and anxiety," without doing anything else wrong. The applicant's unit did not provide support but focused on testing the applicant weekly or every other week. The applicant contends being unable to land a job and provide for the family with the current discharge. Even the GI Bill educational assistance does not provide full financial assistance. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 4 August 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD diagnoses). Therefore, the Board 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 (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200, Chapter 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 11 May 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 April 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant tested positive for MDMA on 8 November 2010 and THC on 17 June 2009. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 18 April 2011, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 August 2008 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 104 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 9 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG (14 July 2008 - 28 August 2008) / GD (However, according to the discharge certificate, the applicant received an HD.) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA (Iraq (5 August 2009 - 31 July 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; NDSM; GWOTSM; ICM-CS; ASR; OSR; CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Laboratory Confirmed Biochemical Test Results, referring to DD Form 2624, reflects the applicant tested positive for MDMA (Ecstasy (methylenedioxymethanphetamine)) during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 8 November 2010. The Test Results also referred to a prior positive result for THC on 17 June 2009. One Developmental Counseling Form, for a failed urinalysis on 8 November 2010. CG Article 15, dated 1 December 2010, for failing to go to the appointed place of duty, to wit: PT formation, on 4 November 2010. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $423 pay; and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. FG Article 15, dated 15 December 2010, for wrongfully using MDMA (between 3 and 8 November 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $723 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 February 2011, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 30 March 2011, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: "Anxiety, anxious, and has been through classes." 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; three photographs depicting family; five supporting and character reference statements; college unofficial transcripts; diploma; nine certificates of completion; VA Rating Decision; and self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant was a Licensed Massage Therapist and a full-time accounting student. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 600-85 defines the Limited Use Policy and states unless waived under the circumstances listed in paragraph 10-13d, Limited Use Policy prohibits the use by the government of protected evidence against a Soldier in actions under the UCMJ or on the issue of characterization of service in administrative proceedings. Additionally, the policy limits the characterization of discharge to "Honorable" if protected evidence is used. e. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) 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. f. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (drug abuse). g. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends not being clearly informed of a less than honorable discharge. The Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) shows the unit commander initiated an action to separate the applicant for misconduct of using illegal drugs with a recommendation to receive a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. The applicant was informed of the types of characterization of service, and the separation authority having the final authority on the characterization of service. The applicant was also informed of the right to consult with a legal counsel, the applicant waived legal counsel on 18 April 2011. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends using drugs as a coping mechanism therapy, which helped the applicant with PTSD, stresses acquired from deployment and redeployment surroundings, depression, and anxiety. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD 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 8 February 2011, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The ARBA sent a letter to the applicant at the address in the application on 1 September 2020, requesting documentation to support a PTSD diagnosis but received no response from the applicant. The applicant contends having good service and serving a one-year combat tour, although finding it impossible to cope and acclimate after redeployment, the applicant's performance was not affected. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends the discharge should be upgraded because of the numerous negative issues surrounding the applicant's enlistment, the events during the combat tour affecting the unit and platoon, and the subsequent redeployment and segregation of the platoon and unit affecting the applicant's behavioral health issues; thereby, making it impossible for the applicant to cope and acclimate without the help of the applicant's unit, friends, and comrade and it subsequently led to the discharge. The applicant's contentions were considered. The evidence of AMHRR shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling and the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The commander's forwarding memorandum reflects, the applicant "continually demonstrated patterns of misconduct following rehabilitative attempts by [the applicant's] chain of command." The applicant contends the only event was failing a urinalysis, an isolated incident, which led to the discharge from the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends other Soldiers with similar or worse offenses were sheltered from repercussions, received promotions, and allowed to stay in the Army. Applicable regulations state each case must be decided on an individual basis, considering the unique facts and circumstances of the particular and specific case. The applicant contends becoming a Licensed Massage Therapist and is currently under a VA vocational rehabilitation training program, Chapter 31, and submits several certificates of training. 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. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment as the applicant is no longer a successful Massage Therapist because of being disabled, and the current discharge prevents the applicant from landing a job. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good conduct after leaving the Army. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Combat- related PTSD and Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder and is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for combat-related PTSD. Service connection establishes that applicant's PTSD also existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder and is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for combat-related PTSD, which mitigates the basis for separation. Given the nexus between PTSD and self-medicating with substances, there was likely an association between applicant's PTSD and the drug use that led to applicant's separation. (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 Combat-related PTSD outweighed the positive urinalysis test for MDMA and THC use basis for separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends not being clearly informed of receiving a less than honorable discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's positive urinalysis test for MDMA and THC use basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends using drugs as a coping mechanism therapy, helped the applicant cope with the PTSD, stresses acquired from deployment and redeployment surroundings, depression, and anxiety. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to PTSD mitigating the applicant's positive urinalysis test for MDMA and THC use charges. (3) The applicant contends having good service and serving a one-year combat tour, and although finding it impossible to cope and acclimate after redeployment, the applicant's performance was not affected. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant's service record. (4) The applicant contends the only event was failing a urinalysis event, an isolated incident, which led to the discharge from the Army. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's positive urinalysis test for MDMA and THC use basis for separation. (5) The applicant contends other Soldiers with similar or worse offenses were sheltered repercussions and allowed to stay in the Army. The Board considered this contention and determined that there is no evidence, and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. However, the applicant's PTSD outweighs the applicant's positive urinalysis test for MDMA and THC use, thus, warranting an upgrade to honorable. (6) The applicant contends becoming a Licensed Massage Therapist and is currently under a VA vocational rehabilitation training program, Chapter 31, and submits several certificates of training. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD outweighs the applicant's positive urinalysis test for MDMA and THC use, thus, warranting an upgrade to honorable. (7) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment as the applicant is no longer a successful Massage Therapist due to being disabled, and the current discharge prevents the applicant from landing a job. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD diagnoses). Therefore, the Board 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 to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD mitigated the applicant's misconduct of positive urinalysis test for MDMA and THC use. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The Board voted to change the RE code to RE-3 due to applicant's service limiting conditions -Adjustment Disorder and Combat-related PTSD. 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 AR20210002674 1