1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant states the discharge was due to both procedural defects and equitable discharge. The discharge was erroneous at the time and has served the purpose. The applicant states having trouble in psychosis and was hallucinating vividly and auditory. Due to the mental health issues and PTSD, the applicant started to self-medicate. The applicant also states being accused of fraudulent enlistment due to the fact the applicant was mentally ill before the applicant signed the contract so it was the applicant's fault. The applicant's parents told the recruiter prior to enlisting the applicant was mentally ill before the applicant went to MEPS. 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. 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: Secretarial Authority / AR 635-200, Para 5-3 / JFF / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 21 December 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 November 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Soldier procured of an enlistment through deliberate material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment of information, to wit: misrepresentation of drug use, which if known by the Army at the time of enlistment might have resulted in rejection. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 9 November 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 9 November 2006, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 December 2006 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 November 2005 / 3 years, 20 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 128 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 19D10, Calvary Scout / 1 year, 1 month, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CID Report, dated 27 June 2006, reflects the applicant was being investigated for Wrongful Distribution of Cocaine; Wrongful Introduction of Cocaine w/Intent to Distribute; Wrongful use of Cocaine; and Fail to Obey General Order. Charge Sheet, dated 13 July 2006, reflects the applicant was charged with: Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86. Specification 1: The applicant did on or about 12 June 2006, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty. Specification 2: The applicant did on or about 12 June 2006, without authority, went AWOL from the unit and did remain so absent until on or about 14 June 2006. Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a. Specification 1: The applicant did between on or about 24 June 2006, wrongfully distribute nine grams of cocaine. Specification 2: The applicant did between on or about 21 and 24 June 2006, wrongfully use cocaine. Specification 3: the applicant did on or about 21 May and 21 June 2006, wrongfully use marijuana. Positive Drug Report, dated 29 September 2006, reflects the applicant's urine specimen tested positive for marijuana metabolites. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment form, reflects the applicant was command- referred into the ASAP and the applicant admitted to use of a controlled substance (marijuana) while AWOL. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Sanity Board Evaluation, dated 16 August 2006, reflects the following diagnosis: Axis 1 - Polysubstance Dependence (304.80) hallucinogens dependence (304.50), Cannabis Dependence (304.30), Cocaine Dependence (304.20), Alcohol Abuse (305.00), Amphetamine abuse (305.7), Axis 11 - Antisocial Personality Disorder. The applicant provided a copy of Blue Ridge Behavioral Health Care Report, dated 21 October 2016, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Schizoaffective disorder, Depressive, Psychotic disorder due to another, Posttraumatic stress disorder, Generalized anxiety disorder, Unspecified bipolar and related dis. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD form 293; Personal Affidavit of Military Member; NPRC Letter; DD Form 2366; DD Form 4; DD Form 1966; DA Form 3286; SF 86; DD Form 369; copy of social security card; copy of certificate of live birth; ERB; Report of Medical Examination; separation packet; DD Form 93; SGLV 8286; Delta Troop 5th Squadron 15th Cavalry Certificate; Certificate of Training; VA Form 21078a; four third party letters; Carilion Roanoke Community Hospital Report; VA Letter; DD Form 214; VA Form 21-4138; VA Form 21-4142; Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Review; Motion to Dismiss Court documents. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has self-taught various art forms, through study, and trial and error, as well as learning many acoustic musical instruments, and has become very proficient with many different genres of music spanning the globe. 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 5-3 (Chapter 15 current regulation) provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memorandums. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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 "JFF" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-3, Secretarial Authority. 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 an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends suffering from mental health issues and PTSD. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation from Sanity Board Evaluation, dated 16 August 2006 which supports a diagnosis: Axis 1 - Polysubstance Dependence (304.80) hallucinogens dependence (304.50), Cannabis Dependence (304.30), Cocaine Dependence (304.20), Alcohol Abuse (305.00), Amphetamine abuse (305.7), Axis 11 - Antisocial Personality Disorder. The applicant provided Blue Ridge Behavioral Health Care Report, dated 21 October 2016, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Schizoaffective disorder, Depressive, Psychotic disorder due to another, Posttraumatic stress disorder, Generalized anxiety disorder, Unspecified bipolar and related dis. The AMHRR does not contain a mental status evaluation (MSE). The applicant contends self-medicating to deal with mental issues and PTSD. The command did not help the applicant seek the help needed for the mental issues. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends being accused of fraudulent enlistment due to the fact the applicant was mentally ill before the applicant signed the contract. The applicant's parents told the recruiter prior to enlisting the applicant was mentally ill before the applicant went to MEPs. The applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention of disclosing the mental health issues at the time of enlistment. 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 of how the applicant still suffers with mental health issues. They all recognize the applicant's struggle with these issues and the applicant's good conduct after leaving the Army. The applicant contends self-teaching various art forms, through study, and trial and error, as well as learning many acoustic musical instruments, and has become very proficient with many different genres of music spanning the globe. 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? N/A. Applicant already holds an Honorable discharge, so there is no medical mitigation required for a characterization upgrade. (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 suffering from mental health issues and PTSD. The Board liberally considered applicant's PTSD, other BH conditions and the applicant's pre-service psychotic disorder diagnosis during the proceedings, but found no additional discharge change was warranted based on these BH conditions. (2) The applicant contends self-medicating to deal with mental issues and PTSD. The Board considered this contention during the proceedings but found no additional discharge change was warranted based on these BH conditions. (3) The applicant contends being accused of fraudulent enlistment due to the fact the applicant was mentally ill before the applicant signed the contract. The Board considered this contention but found no additional discharge change was warranted based on this contention. (4) The applicant contends self-teaching various art forms, through study, and trial and error, as well as learning many acoustic musical instruments, and has become very proficient with many different genres of music spanning the globe. 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 current discharge is proper and equitable. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 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 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 AR20210003112 1