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: 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, at the time of service, the applicant was suffering from anxiety, depression and the disease of alcoholism, and addiction. The applicant claims applicant was undiagnosed and unaware of the extent of the affliction which led to the discharge. When the symptoms did not overcome the applicant, the applicant claims the applicant was a model Soldier. The applicant claims the applicant was not diagnosed, nor did the applicant start treatment until after disciplinary action had begun. Once diagnosed, the applicant claims applicant took every option given and worked diligently to get the disease under control. In the unit, the applicant claims drinking was encouraged and a rite of passage for all Soldiers. The applicant claims it seemed normal, so it was often hard to identify a problem, and with the schedule in an infantry unit training for the upcoming deployment, it was hard to address mental health issues. Once offered the opportunity for treatment, the applicant claims applicant was able to manage the disease. While awaiting discharge, the applicant claims applicant began to teach religious education to students on post to other service members and volunteered almost every remaining weekend at Soldiers against drunk driving, picking up intoxicated Soldiers and getting them home safely. In a records review conducted on 16 June 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: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure / AR 635-200, Chapter 9 / JPD / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 September 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 July 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program for alcohol abuse on 27 July 2011. The applicant failed to demonstrate commitment to the treatment for alcohol abuse and had been designated as an alcohol rehabilitation failure by the rehabilitative team and the Commander. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 23 July 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 31 July 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 October 2009 / 6 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / some college / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B1P, Infantryman / 3 years, 2 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 17 October 2011, for being drunk on duty as an Infantryman on or about 20 June 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $822 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Summary of Army Substance Abuse Program Rehabilitation Failure (memo), dated 23 November 2011, reflects the applicant was referred to Fort Richardson's Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) on 27 July 2011 following a BAT verified at a 0.104 during the duty day. The applicant completed an in-depth alcohol and drug assessment on 27 July 2011 and was clinically confirmed with diagnoses of Opioid Dependence, Cannabis Dependence and Alcohol Abuse. The rehabilitation team meeting (RTM) was held on 12 September 2011 following training in Louisiana, at which time the applicant was enrolled in treatment and agreed to comply with all treatment requirements. The applicant acknowledged the expectation of abstinence is required of all ASAP enrollments. The applicant's treatment plan included abstinence from alcohol and all mood altering substances, the 14-hour Prime for Life, educational alcohol and drug series, weekly group sessions, bi-weekly individual counseling sessions, three Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings a week, a breathalyzer test (BAT) five times a week, and a Urinalysis (UA) test two times a week. The applicant completed Prime for Life on 17-18 September 2011, seven weekly group sessions, six weekly individual sessions and multiple AA meetings. On 21 November 2011 the applicant became intoxicated, pulled a fire alarm and was taken to CID. The applicant has failed to demonstrate abstinence, the motivation necessary to learn alternative coping skills and strategies and apply what is learned in individual and group sessions to the applicant's life. The applicant has also failed to demonstrate a willingness to rehabilitate. Patient Progress Report, dated 23 November 2011, reflects the applicant was released from the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP). The applicant's in-progress evaluation was poor, and the counselor recommended terminating treatment and separation. The unit commander's appraisal of the applicant's performance was unsatisfactory. The reason for separation from the ASAP programs was "Separation/Termination as Alcohol/Drug Abuse Rehab Failure." i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Summary of Army Substance Abuse Program Rehabilitation Failure (memo), dated 23 November 2011, reflects the applicant completed an in-depth alcohol and drug assessment on 27 July 2011 and was clinically confirmed with diagnoses of Opioid Dependence, Cannabis Dependence and Alcohol Abuse. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 January 2012, 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. The applicant was diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder NOS. The applicant provided a letter from Providence Behavioral Health, dated 30 July 2012, which reflects the applicant was a participant in the Providence Breakthrough Chemical Dependency Treatment Program. The applicant was recommended for a Partial Hospitalization Treatment (PHP). The applicant entered the program on 16 April 2012. The applicant participated in random urinalysis and breathalyzer testing. The applicant was consistently cooperative and tested negative after experiencing a slip during the first week of treatment. The applicant completed the PHP treatment and transitioned into the Intensive Outpatient Program on 28 May 2012, the applicant completed eight weeks of IOP and opted to stay engaged in one day of aftercare and attend the 12 week course on Relapse Prevention. The applicant provided a memorandum for record, dated 17 August 2012, which reflects the applicant referred oneself to behavioral health treatment facility in 2011 due to insomnia, anxiety and depressions symptoms. The applicant was positively engaged in treatment for the past several months in addition to maintaining sobriety and learning to manage triggers and symptoms. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Request from sponsor memorandum; two letters from Providence Behavioral Health; two character letters; self-authored statement; Silver Lake Psychotherapy Associates letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has not touched a drink nor drug in half a decade while continuing therapies and twelve step programs. The applicant has a successful career as a Union Carpenter and is happily married and raising two young children. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. (5) Paragraph 9-4, stipulates the service of Soldiers discharged under this section will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required. An honorable discharge is mandated in any case in which the Government initially introduces into the final discharge process limited use evidence as defined by AR 600-85. 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 "JPD" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure. 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 evidence of AMHRR indicates on 23 November 2011, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. The applicant failed to demonstrate abstinence, the motivation necessary to learn alternative coping skills and strategies and apply what was learned in individual and group sessions to the applicant's life. The applicant had also failed to demonstrate a willingness to rehabilitate. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "alcohol rehabilitation failure," and the separation code is "JPD." 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 suffering from anxiety, depression, alcoholism and addiction. The applicant was undiagnosed and unaware of the extent of the affliction. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service Anxiety Disorder NOS. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 19 January 2012, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant was referred to Fort Richardson's Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) on 27 July 2011 following a BAT verified at a 0.104 during the duty day. The applicant completed an in-depth alcohol and drug assessment on 27 July 2011 and was clinically confirmed with diagnoses of Opioid Dependence, Cannabis Dependence and Alcohol Abuse. The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends drinking was encouraged in the unit and a rite of passage. The evidence of record 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 AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good conduct while serving in the Army. After being discharged, the applicant claims applicant has not touched a drink nor drug in half a decade while continuing therapies and twelve step programs. The applicant claims applicant has a successful career as a Union Carpenter and is happily married and raising two young children. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization 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 potentially-mitigating diagnoses: Adjustment Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found in-service BH diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration, it is the opinion of the Board's Medical advisor that the applicant's service connected BH conditions do not mitigate the rehabilitation program failure due to the applicant's lengthy documented history of substance abuse that pre-dates military service that was not exacerbated by military service, and further, there is no nexus between applicant's BH conditions and failing the rehabilitation program. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. The Board, after applying liberal consideration, concurred with the Board's Medical Advisor that applicant's BH conditions do not outweigh the unmitigated basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention but determined that the evidence does not warrant any change to the applicant's discharge narrative. (2) The applicant contends suffering from anxiety, depression, alcoholism and addiction, and that the applicant was undiagnosed and unaware of the extent of the affliction. The Board liberally considered this contention, but determined that the applicant's lengthy documented history of substance abuse began before military service, was not exacerbated by military service, and further, there is no nexus between applicant's BH conditions and failing the rehabilitation program thus the applicant was aware of issues. (3) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered this contention but determined the applicant's failed ASAP program fell below the standard of military service expected to warrant an upgrade to applicant's discharge. (4) The applicant contends drinking was encouraged in the unit and a rite of passage. The Board considered this contention but determined that this contention does not warrant any change to the applicant's discharge because the weight of the evidence did not support a conclusion that the command acted in any arbitrary or capricious manner. (5) After being discharged, the applicant claims applicant has not touched a drink nor drug in half a decade while continuing therapies and twelve step programs. The applicant claims applicant has a successful career as a Union Carpenter and is happily married and raising two young children. 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 accomplishments do not warrant any change to applicant's discharge. 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, the applicant's Adjustment Disorder and Anxiety Disorder did not outweigh the unmitigated offenses of being intoxicated and pulling a fire alarm while enrolled in ASAP program, and the discharge was both proper and equitable. 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 under the same pretexts, and 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 AR20210002881 1