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, applicant joined the military because applicant was not really doing anything in applicant’s life, plus applicant had two children. Applicant wanted to give back to the country and serve along the side of the men and women who were fighting against evil in the world. The applicant thought this could also give applicant’s family a more stable environment. Applicant left home and went off to Basic Combat Training which applicant completed at the top of applicant’s Company where applicant then finished applicant’s Advanced Individual Training becoming a Light Wheeled Diesel Mechanic. Once arriving at applicant’s duty station, applicant was able to immediately take leave, so applicant could go home and get married. The applicant had become the person applicant’s family, friends, and community looked up to and respected. Applicant and family were stationed at the National Training Center in the middle of the Mojave Desert. Applicant was attached to the 669th Maintenance Company, but only worked in the motor pool for six months, wherein applicant earned the rank of PFC and was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for exemplary performance and outstanding service during 4th ID’s training exercise rotation. Because of applicant’s performance, applicant was asked to become the Battalion Commander’s personal driver, which applicant accepted as a challenge for applicant to be a better Soldier and further applicant’s career. Applicant served most of applicant’s enlistment as the driver and earned the rank of SPC. Then applicant did something very stupid for which applicant still pays the price more than 10 years later. Applicant began taking over the counter No-Doze to stay awake at night to study all the materials to become a pilot. Applicant further began using speed (Methamphetamine) to give an edge and study harder. Eventually, applicant tested positive for the illegal substance during a company-wide urinalysis. Applicant then realized applicant had a problem and needed help. This was the single most embarrassing thing applicant had ever been through in life as applicant was in a position where everyone knew and respected applicant due to applicant’s position as the Battalion Commander’s driver. Applicant was demoted and was ordered to attend drug treatment classes, which applicant completed, although applicant was certain more help was needed to not abuse drugs, applicant was too ashamed and scared to ask for more help. When applicant was sent to work in the mailroom, the extent of what applicant had done finally hit. Applicant could kiss applicant’s dreams of ever flying a helicopter in the Army goodbye. Having the attitude, the Army had abandoned and brushed applicant aside, applicant began to resent the commanding staff and stopped caring about being a good Soldier. Applicant started using drugs again and failed a second urinalysis and was separated from the Army with a general discharge. After applicant’s discharge applicant knew applicant had a serious drug dependency problem and was offered diesel mechanic jobs at every copper mine around applicant’s town, but applicant could not pass a drug test and settled for a job as a janitor. The applicant attended NA meeting and sought counseling from the VA to help become clean and sober and is now a changed person. Applicant facilitates their local Smart Recover meetings and is a member of Point Man Ministries which is a faith-based group of veterans who help veterans with issues involving PTSD or drug and alcohol use. The applicant also volunteers in applicant’s community. Applicant was recently told applicant could use applicant’s GI Bill if applicant’s discharge was upgraded. Applicant wishes to change careers and an upgrade would allow applicant to use applicant’s GI Bill to pay for required courses. Applicant refuses to let the past define who applicant is and has come a long way and still tries to achieve greatness. In a records review conducted on 1 March 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 3 January 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The notification of initiation of separation action is not in the applicant’s AMHRR. The Commander’s Report, dated 11 December 2007, reflects the specific reason for separation was the applicant wrongfully used methamphetamines and marijuana between on or about 28 January and 28 February 2007. (3) Recommended Characterization: The intermediate commander recommended an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 December 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 11 December 2007, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 December 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 March 2005 / 3 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / HS Graduate / 127 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 63B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 2 years, 10 months, 9 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: Commander’s Report, dated 11 December 2007, reflects the applicant received: FG Article 15, imposed on 15 February 2007, for wrongful use of a controlled substance. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $729 pay per month for two months(suspended); extra duty and restriction for 45 days. FG Article 15, imposed on 10 July 2007, for wrongful use of a controlled substance. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, suspended; forfeiture of $650 pay per month for two months, suspended and extra duty for 45 days, suspended. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; two third-party letters. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states no longer using drugs and continues to attend NA meetings to keep applicant’s sobriety alive. Applicant is currently working as an HVAC Technician and is facilitating applicant’s own Smart Recover meetings in applicant’s community. Applicant is a member of a faith based group of Veterans. 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 prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial 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 “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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 waivable and nonwaivable 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 waivable. 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 good service. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow 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 having obtained employment and volunteers in the community. 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. 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. 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 DoD and VA medical records and found the applicant was diagnosed with Depression which, in the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor could potentially mitigate multiple drug usage which led to separation from the Army. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor arrived at this finding based upon the applicant having an in-service BH diagnoses of Depression. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board’s Medical Advisor opined that although the applicant has a BH diagnosis of Depression, it does not mitigate applicant’s misconduct of multiple drug usage, because, per the applicant, drug usage was associated with helping applicant stay up late to study, not for any symptoms related to applicant’s BH disorder. (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 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 multiple drug usage, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (2) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow 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, healthcare or VA loans, 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. (3) 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. (4) The applicant contends having obtained employment and volunteers in applicant’s community. 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 did not warrant a change to the 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 of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s behavioral health conditions did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of multiple drug usage that were the basis for applicant’s separation, 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 AR20210003123 1