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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant believes the circumstances surrounding the discharge were unjust and unfair. The applicant suffers from mental health issues which began on active duty and worsened because of the effects of the DD Form 214. The applicant is ineligible for VA benefits which would help the applicant deal with the issues and had been turned down for good jobs which would provide insurance for medical care. The applicant described the childhood as being the son of a military mother; growing up in Clarksville, TN, around Fort Campbell, KY; and attending church, which explained the interests in joining the military. The applicant joined the military at the age 18 and was stationed at Fort Benning, GA, to attend basic training. The applicant had a daughter on the way and although unable to attend the birth, the applicant was excited knowing the child and mother would be provided for medically and financially. The applicant graduated from basic training and advanced individual training, reunited with the family, and became a Hometown Recruiter. The applicant was assigned to Fort Hood, TX. The applicant married, but the continuous field training exercises took a toll on the new mother and the marriage. The wife and child moved back to Kentucky and the applicant began to experience severe depression. The applicant began to drink and smoke marijuana and failed a unit urinalysis. The applicant received two weeks of extra duty and began to experience pay issues. The unit was ordered to go to the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, CA, and the applicant was promised the pay issue would be resolved upon returning to Fort Hood. The applicant had to remain at Fort Irwin for an extra three weeks to clean the training area, which increased the mental depression and stress. The applicant received $800 and no other payment for three months. The applicant paid the rent, but eventually lost the apartment and the items inside. The applicant was basically homeless for a month and could not stay on post because the applicant was still married. The applicant grew not to trust the superiors. The applicant requested mental assistance and was referred to a priest, but did not receive proper assistance which worried the applicant's parents. The unit was about to deploy and the applicant had a mental breakdown in formation and was verbally attacked by peers and a commissioned officer, which landed the applicant in Rear Detachment. The applicant was confined for three months, in general population in Bell County, TX, but did not have the opportunity to notify the family prior to confinement. The applicant was traumatized and requested to get out of the service. The applicant was released from confinement, but was restricted to the barracks; did not receive the proper psychological help; and, was discharged in a span of two days. The applicant does not know which charges resulted in the confinement. The applicant is unable to receive benefits for the applicant and the family, which caused severe depression. The applicant maintained a job, but could never find a good job due to the discharge. The applicant attended college for psychology; became a barber; and divorced, but remarried, with four children to include full custody of the first born. The applicant further details the contentions in allied self-authored statements submitted with the application, to include the reasons for the AWOLs and experiencing harassment and racism. In a records review conducted on 28 April 2022, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the equity of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214 improper, specifically block 27 contains the erroneous reentry eligibility (RE) code of 3. In view of the error, the Board directed an administrative correction to block 28 to read Misconduct (Serious Offense) and block 26 for a SPD code of JKQ as required by Army Regulations. 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, Paragraph 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 17 September 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 August 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: Under the provisions Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, the applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant tested positive for marijuana on two occasions, been absent without leave (AWOL) on five occasions, and disobeyed orders and failed to be at the appointed place of duty on numerous occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 August 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 18 August 2010, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 September 2010 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions / The separation authority approved the unconditional waiver and the separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 January 2009 / 3 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 1 year, 7 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 24 February 2010, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 201 (marijuana), during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing, conducted on 11 February 2010. The applicant Enlisted Record Brief reflects the applicant was reduced from E-3 to E-2 on 3 March 2010. Ten Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective date 25 March 2010; From "Absent Without Leave" to "Present for Duty," effective date 30 March 2010; From "Present for Duty" to "Absent Without Leave," effective date 8 April 2010; From "Absent Without Leave" to "Present for Duty," effective date 12 April 2010; From "Present for Duty" to "Absent Without Leave," effective date 26 April 2010; From "Absent Without Leave" to "Present for Duty," effective date 5 May 2010; From "Present for Duty" to "Absent Without Leave," effective date 10 May 2010; From "Absent Without Leave" to "Present for Duty," effective date 12 May 2010; From "Present for Duty" to "Absent Without Leave," effective date 17 June 2010; and, From "Absent Without Leave" to "Present for Duty," effective date 1 July 2010. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 12 May 2010, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 359 (marijuana), during a Competence for Duty/Command Directed (CO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 5 May 2010. Memorandum for Record, dated 15 July 2010, reflects the commander directed a urinalysis test on the applicant as a result of returning from AWOL status. Charge Sheet, dated 12 August 2010, reflects the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Specifications 1 -5, without authority was absent from the unit: Between 25 to 30 March 2010; Between 8 to 12 April 2010; Between 26 April to 5 May 2010; Between 10 to 12 May 2010; and, Between 17 June to 1 July 2010. Specifications 6-12, failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty: On 17 March 2010, 0600 Regimental Support Squadron motor pool; On 22 March 2010, 0600 Regimental Support Squadron motor pool; On 9 April 2010, 0630 Accountability Formation; On 19 April 2010, 0630 Accountability Formation; On 26 July 2010, 0630 Accountability Formation; On 10 August 2010, 0630 Accountability Formation; and, On 12 August 2010, 0630 Accountability Formation. Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a: Specification 1: Between 5 April and 5 May 2010, wrongfully use marijuana. Specification 2: Between 11 January and 11 February 2010, wrongfully use marijuana. Charge III: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, The Specification: Between 7 August and 8 August 2010, fail to obey a lawful order issued by Captain R.M. to remain in the Regimental Support Squadron footprint by wrongfully leaving the footprint without authorization. Memorandum, subject: Rights of Pretrial Confinee, dated 12 August 2010, reflected the applicant was notified of the rights and the reasons for being placed in pretrial confinement. The memorandum was endorsed by the commander and the applicant. Confinement Order, dated 12 August 2010, reflects the applicant's commander directed the applicant to serve pretrial confinement for 12 charges of Article 86, UCMJ; 2 charges of Article 112a, UCMJ; and, 1 charge of Article 92, UCMJ. Offer to Plead Guilty, dated 18 August 2010, reflects the applicant offered to plead guilty of all Specifications provided the case was referred to a summary court-martial. The applicant understood the applicant was being considered for administrative separation under AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c and as part of the offer, agreed to unconditionally waive the right to an administrative separation board even if considered for an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The AMHRR is void of any summary court-martial proceedings. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 August 2010, reflects the applicant was mentally responsible and could participate in the proceedings. The evaluation did not indicate any diagnosis. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. The applicant provided VA letter, dated 28 December 2017, reflecting the applicant's military service for the period 6 January 2009 through 17 September 2010 was dishonorable for VA purposes and the applicant and dependents were not eligible for any VA benefits. The applicant provided VA Rating Decision, dated 17 May 2019, reflecting the applicant was granted service-connected disability for tinnitus. The applicant claimed other medical conditions, to include Major Depressive Disorder/Sleep Problems, but the Major Depressive Disorder/Sleep Problems was denied due to the records showing no diagnosis of a psychiatric condition. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 34 days: AWOL, 25 March 2010 - 29 March 2010 / Surrendered AWOL, 8 April 2010 - 11 April 2010 / Surrendered AWOL, 26 April 2010 - 4 May 2010 / Surrendered AWOL, 10 May 2010 - 11 May 2010 / Surrendered AWOL, 17 June 2010 - 30 June 2010 / Surrendered The applicant's AMHRR contains a Confinement Order, dated 12 August 2010, for pretrial confinement, but the record is void of DA Forms 4187 showing confinement and/or release from confinement and the period is not reflected on the DD Form 214. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; two DD Forms 293; three self-authored statements; four third party statements; VA Letter; VA Rating Decision; ARBA letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends maintaining employment; attending college; being a good spouse and parent; and, a good citizen in the community. 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. Protected evidence under this policy includes: Results of command-directed drug or alcohol testing that are inadmissible under the MRE. 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) Paragraph 3-8a states a Soldier is entitled to an honorable characterization of service if limited-use evidence (see AR 600-85) is initially introduced by the Government in the discharge proceedings, and the discharge is based upon those proceedings. The separation authority will consult with the servicing Judge Advocate in cases involving limited use evidence. (6) 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. (7) 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. (8) 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-4 applies to a 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 applicant's case separation packet included a DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document-Drug Testing), which reflected a test of "CO," indicating Fitness for Duty "Competence for Duty/Command Directed." The applicant's immediate commander indicated the test was directed based on the applicant returning to duty from AWOL status. Given the preceding, the code on the DD Form 2624 was in all likelihood incorrect and should have been coded IO for "Inspection Other" instead of CO for "Competence for Duty/Command Directed." Therefore, the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the error on file in this case. The evidence did not create a substantial doubt the discharge would have been any different absent the error. Based on the applicant's AMHRR, someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, "AR 635-200, PARA 14-12C (2)"; block 26, "JKK"; and block 28, "Misconduct (Drug Abuse)." The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). Soldiers processed for misconduct under these provisions will be assigned a Narrative Reason for Separation as Misconduct (Serious Offense) and a SPD code of JKQ. The applicant contends severe depression and family issues affected behavior and ultimately led to 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's AMHRR contains no documentation of depression diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 23 August 2010, which reflects the applicant was mentally responsible cleared to participate in the chapter proceedings. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant provided third party statement, explaining the change in the applicant's demeanor and VA medical documents reflecting a claim of service-connected medical conditions to include Major Depressive Disorder/Sleep Problems, but the claim for Major Depressive Disorder/Sleep Problems was denied. The applicant contends not being provided any assistance from the chain of command for the mental health or other issues. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling. Army Regulation 600-85, paragraph 7-3 entitled voluntary (self) identification and referral, states voluntary (self) ID is the most desirable method of identifying substance use disorder. The individual whose performance, social conduct, interpersonal relations, or health becomes impaired because of these problems has the personal obligation to seek help. Soldiers seeking self-referral for problematic substance use may access services through BH services for a SUD evaluation. The Limited Use Policy exists to encourage Soldiers to proactively seek help. The applicant contends harassment and racism by members of the unit. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends not knowing the reason for being confined. The AMHRR contains a memorandum of rights of pretrial confinement, dated 12 August 2010, which was endorsed by the applicant. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow medical benefits and educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends maintaining employment; attending college; being a good husband and father; and, a good citizen in the community. 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. 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? No. 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 could not find any specific mental health condition that could mitigate the basis for applicant's separation even though applicant mentioned on DD form 293 having Depression. The only specific BH condition noted in any evidence, Major Depression Disorder noted in the applicant's VA 17 May 2019 rating decision letter, specifically states that applicant does not have any symptoms of Major Depression Disorder, nor is that only mentioned BH condition in that decision letter linked with applicant's military service, therefore, even after applying liberal consideration, the Board's Medical Advisor concluded there is no BH condition which may mitigate applicant's basis for separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? N/A. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends severe depression and family issues affected behavior that ultimately led to the discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention, but agreed with the Board's Medical Advisor that no BH condition existed that outweighed the basis for applicant's separation, and further determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with family issues, and the weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that applicant pursued such assistance. The Board concluded that the applicant abusing drugs and going AWOL is not an acceptable response to dealing with family issues, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (2) The applicant contends not being provided any assistance from the chain of command for the mental health or other issues. The Board considered this contention but concluded the weight of the evidence shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling. (3) The applicant contends harassment and racism by members of the unit. The Board considered this contention but determined that the weight of the evidence, including that in the AMHRR, does not support a conclusion that the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment, and therefore does not warrant any change to the applicant's discharge. (4) The applicant contends not knowing the reason for being confined. The Board found that the AMHRR contains a memorandum of rights of pretrial confinement, dated 12 August 2010, which was endorsed by the applicant that contradicts this contention. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow medical benefits and educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. (6) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (7) The applicant contends maintaining employment; attending college; being a good husband and father; and, a good citizen in the community. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization 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 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 contentions 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 assertion of mental health conditions did not mitigate the offenses of testing positive for marijuana on two occasions, been absent without leave (AWOL) on five occasions, and disobeying orders and failed to be at the appointed place of duty on numerous occasions, 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 to change the applicant's reason for discharge because, although the Board found the discharge proper and equitable and there were no BH diagnoses which mitigated the misconduct to warrant relief, it was found that there was an administrative error on the applicant's DD Form 214, thus making the current reason for discharge improper. The corrected reason for discharge will be Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKQ. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD code to: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / JKQ 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 AR20210003081 1