1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant through counsel, requests a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was improper because it was based on a positive urinalysis results which should have been precluded because the applicant had voluntarily begun treatment for substance abuse. Under liberal consideration, it was inequitable because the applicant had PTSD which excuses or mitigates the misconduct and outweighs the reason for discharge. It was also inequitable because of family and personal problems which may have affected the applicant’s ability to serve satisfactorily. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 19 July 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 (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 9 October 2014 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: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant provided a copy of a memorandum, dated 17 September 2014 which reflects an Administrative Separation Board was held on 15 July 2014, and the Board recommend the applicant be separated with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The separation authority approved the findings of the Board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 September 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 July 2011 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 30 / HS Graduate / 122 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 18D3V 5W, Special Forces Medical Sergeant / 11 years, 9 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 30 January 2002 – 15 September 2006 / HD (Break in Service) RA, 28 September 2007 – 4 July 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (7 January 2005 – 7 April 2005); Iraq (5 October 2005 – 9 January 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: PH, ARCOM-V, AAM-2, AGCM-3, NDSM, ACM-A, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 1 June 2009 – 31 August 2012 / Among The Best 1 September 2012 – 28 March 2013 / Fully Capable 29 March 2013 – 30 September 2013 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 28 August 2013, for being disrespectful to a commissioned officer on or about 4 and 6 August 2013. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $769 pay, suspended; and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days; oral reprimand. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 19 February 2014, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 28 August 2013, was vacated for: Article 112a, Wrongful use of methamphetamine on or about 29 August 2013 and on or about 3 February 2014. The applicant provided a copy of Memorandum, Subject Urinalysis Test Results, dated 21 February 2014, which reflects the applicant tested positive for DAMP(amphetamine) and DMETH (methamphetamine) during a Probable Cause (PO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 3 February 2014. The applicant provided a copy of FG Article 15, dated 5 March 2014, for wrongfully using methamphetamine between on or about 31 January 2014 to about 3 February 2014; and, wrongfully using amphetamine between on or about 31 January 2014 to about 3 February 2014. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5; forfeiture of $1,538 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days; and, oral reprimand. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of MEB Narrative Summary, dated 20 July 2014, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, stimulant use disorder, other specified personality disorder. The applicant provided a copy of a referral letter from, a clinical psychologist, undated, which states the applicant is 50 percent service-connected for PTSD. The doctor’s opinion is the applicant’s problems were associated with misdiagnosing military personnel with PTSD and a lack of appreciation of the attitudes and behaviors it manifests, including substance abuse and problems with authority. The applicant suffered from PTSD and the substance abuse disorder is secondary. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; attorney brief; self-authored statement; 16 listed enclosures. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is enrolled in college and is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in nursing. The applicant is also a peer mentor for fellow veterans in the Regional Municipalities Veterans Treatment Court who are battling similar issues. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Chapter 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. (4) 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. (5) Paragraph 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. 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 “JKN” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (minor infractions). 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-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. 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’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12a, by reason of Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a characterization of service of honorable. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12a, AR 635-200 with a honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Minor Infractions),” and the separation code is “JKN.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the discharge was based on a positive urinalysis results which should have been precluded because the applicant had voluntarily begun treatment for substance abuse. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends suffering from PTSD. The applicant provided a copy of MEB Narrative Summary, dated 20 July 2014, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, stimulant use disorder, other specified personality disorder. The applicant provided a copy of a referral letter from, a clinical psychologist, undated, which states the applicant is 50 percent service- connected for PTSD. The doctor’s opinion is the applicant problems were associated with misdiagnosing military personnel with PTSD and a lack of appreciation of the attitudes and behaviors it manifests, including substance abuse and problems with authority. The applicant suffered from PTSD and the substance abuse disorder is secondary. The AMHRR does not contain a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused 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. The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant is enrolled in college and is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in nursing. The applicant is also a peer mentor for fellow veterans in the Regional Municipalities Veterans Treatment Court who are battling similar issues. 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 the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Depression, PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Depression, PTSD existed in 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 while the characterization of service was upgraded to HD, the applicant still committed misconduct, which while mitigated by the BH diagnoses does not completely dismiss it or expunge the evidence of the misconduct from the record. Accordingly, no further upgrade is warranted. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD warranted relief. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. Since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. (2) The applicant contends the discharge was based on a positive urinalysis results which should have been precluded because the applicant had voluntarily begun treatment for substance abuse. The Board determined this contention lacked merit, as the applicant was caught by a positive urinalysis and not in substance abuse treatment voluntarily. (3) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD. The Board considered this contention but determined the narrative reason of Misconduct (Minor Infractions) was appropiate after considering applicant’s mitigated basis for separation. As the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct, and the behavioral health condition does not fully excuse the entirety of the applicant’s responsibility for the misconduct. (4) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with family issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued prior to the drug abuse charges. (5) The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board took the totality of the applicant’s service record into consideration, but determined the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions, the Board determined that further relief was not warranted. (6) The applicant is enrolled in college and is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in nursing. The applicant is also a peer mentor for fellow veterans in the Regional Municipalities Veterans Treatment Court who are battling similar issues. The ADRB is authorized to consider post- service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. 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 post-service conduct did not warrant further relief beyond the Honorable with Minor Infractions discharge already provided. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. ? d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code, The medical mitigation does not warrant a change to Secretarial Authority because the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct, and the applicant’s PTSD and other diagnoses do not fully excuse the entirety of the applicant’s responsibility for the misconduct. Therefore, the Board determined that Secretarial Authority, which is exercised sparingly when no other authority is available, is not warranted because the Misconduct (Minor Infractions) narrative applies in this case. (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 AR20210002738 1