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: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable and the narrative reason for separation be changed to “general reasons”. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant served the country honorably. During the time of service, the applicant received numerous commendations and awards. The applicant’s sergeants attest to the honorable nature of the applicant’s service. Besides the one instance for which the applicant was discharged, the applicant was not subject to any disciplinary action or citations while serving. The circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge involve a single act of self-medication for a clinically diagnosed mental health issue. The applicant was diagnosed with depression in December 2015, and subsequently prescribed powerful antidepressants, commonly known as Wellbutrin. In December 2017, the applicant attempted to refill the prescription, but was unable to due to issues with the pharmacy. After being off the medication for several days and experiencing racing thoughts, shaking, and suicidal ideation, the applicant smoked marijuana one time as a form of escape. After disclosing the use of marijuana to the sergeant and testing positive for the drug, the applicant received a general discharge from the Army. The applicant sincerely regrets the decision to turn to marijuana. At the time, the applicant believed it was the only choice due to the applicant’s mental health issues. According to the Kurta Memo, “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 relation to mental health conditions.” Therefore, because the single incident which caused the applicant’s discharge was related to a mental health condition, and because the general nature of the applicant’s service was honorable, the applicant respectfully request the discharge status be changed to honorable, and the narrative reason for separation be changed to “general reasons.” In a records review conducted on 3 May 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200, Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 30 April 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 February 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between on or about 4 December 2017 and on or about 3 January 2018, the applicant wrongfully used Marijuana, a schedule I controlled substance. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 February 2018 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 8 March 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 August 2014 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 25U1P, Signal Support System Specialist / 3 years, 8 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: District Court for the State of Alaska at Anchorage, dated 5 January 2018, reflects the applicant plead guilty and was convicted to the amended charge of reckless endangerment a class A misdemeanor. The applicant was sentenced to 30 days in jail (suspended) and probation for 12-months. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 25 January 2018, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 771 (marijuana), during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing, conducted on 3 January 2018. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 January 2018, 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: 1 day (NIF, 4 September 2017) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of the applicant’s medical records, which reflect the applicant was being treated for: Attention and concentration deficit and insomnia, unspecified, depression, anxiety, and relationship issues. The applicant was diagnosed with Axis 1: Adjustment disorder with mixed emotions; insomnia, Axis II: deferred, Axis: IV Relationship problems. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; VA Form 21-22a; DD Form 214; legal brief; Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards (Kurta Memo); two third party letters; four certificates; self-authored statement; DD Form 2870; health records. 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), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12c(2) terms abuse of illegal drugs as serious misconduct. It continues; however, by recognizing relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct and processed for separation under paragraph 14-12a or 14-12b as appropriate. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKK” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (drug abuse). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-4 Applies to: 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 of 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Drug Abuse),” and the separation code is “JKK.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. 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 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. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends suffering from mental health issues. The applicant’s provided medical documents which supports a diagnosis of in service adjustment disorder with mixed emotions; insomnia and relationship issues. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 30 January 2018, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. 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. 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 BH diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Adult physical abuse, Antisocial Personality Disorder, and Neurosis. The applicant has additional post-service diagnoses of Delusional Disorder, ADHD. These conditions are potentially mitigating for applicant’s basis for separation. (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, Adult physical abuse, and Antisocial Personality Disorder and service-connection for Neurosis. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. It is the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, that although the applicant has in-service BH diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Adult physical abuse, and Antisocial Personality Disorder and service-connection for Neurosis, these BH conditions do not mitigate the misconduct of illegal drug use that was the basis for applicant’s separation because wrongful use of controlled substance not part of sequela of any applicant service-connected BH condition. (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 any of the applicant’s medical conditions outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed due to suffering from mental health issues. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member’s discharge characterization. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant’s BH conditions do not mitigate the applicant’s drug use. The applicant’s assertion of turning to drugs when applicant’s prescription ran out was determined to be invalid because self-medication was determined not to be part of the sequela of any applicant BH condition, and further, the illegal drug use occurred in between 3 December 2017 and 3 January 2018 – while the doses provided for the applicant’s medication would have run out on 5 January 2018. (2) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. After considering the totality of the applicant’s record, the Board determined that the applicant’s illegal drug use lead to a proper and equitable discharge. (3) 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. There is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued, nor denied by the applicant’s command. (4) The applicant contends good service. The Board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By intentionally using marijuana, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 in-service Adjustment Disorder, Adult physical abuse, Antisocial Personality Disorder, and Neurosis nor post-service diagnoses of Delusional Disorder and ADHD did not mitigate the offenses of marijuana abuse that lead to applicant’s separation that 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, 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 AR20210003033 1