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, prior to applicant's discharge in 2014, applicant had not received any disciplinary actions or been in any trouble during applicant's enlistment. The applicant was deployed to Afghanistan from October 2011 to October 2012, where applicant worked as a medic on convoy security missions. Applicant experienced severely traumatic experiences in Afghanistan which changed applicant's life forever. Applicant witnessed serious acts of violence and multiple KIAs from applicant's unit. Applicant risked their life and only by chance did applicant survive while others in applicant's unit died. Upon return from Afghanistan, applicant began to partake in activities which applicant never had before. Applicant used drugs and alcohol to cope with the trauma from survivor's guilt and horrible memories. Applicant was suicidal and surprised applicant survived this period of applicant's life. In late 2013, applicant was involuntarily admitted to Samaritan hospital in Watertown, NY after taking unknown pills and expressing suicidal ideation. During this same time period, applicant was arrested for possession of cocaine among other charges. Applicant was living in a constant state of frenzied panic due to applicant's PTSD symptoms which clouded applicant's decision making abilities. Applicant received drugs, including alcohol, cocaine, heroin and pills from everywhere applicant could. Subsequent to applicant's arrest, applicant had a family member in Las Vegas, NV, mail applicant drugs for personal use. The first package contained hydrocodone which applicant successfully received and the second contained about one to two grams of cocaine, which was found by a coworker and turned over to the police. Applicant is not proud of this. In 2015, applicant received VA disability rating of 70 percent for PTSD. Applicant was reevaluated in December 2018 and was continued at the rate of 70 percent for PTSD. Applicant served honorably and with pride in Afghanistan but upon applicant's return could not effectively reintegrate back into society and used unhealthy means to cope. Now substance abuse is widely recognized as a side effect of PTSD, and applicant believes applicant's inaccurate discharge status should be changed to accurately reflect applicant's service to this country. Applicant believes they have been punished for applicant's mental health and it brings the applicant even greater distress whenever the applicant thinks of their discharge. In a records review conducted on 22 February 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD diagnoses) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635- 200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. 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: 11 June 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 April 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Applicant wrongfully possessed 1.5 grams of cocaine, wrongfully introduced 1.5 grams of cocaine onto a military installation, and wrongfully sent 1.5 grams of cocaine through the United States Postal Service. Applicant also failed to report to applicant's appointed place of duty on two separate occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 15 April 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 15 April 2014, 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: 19 May 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 October 2010 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 3 years, 7 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (14 October 2011 - 10 October 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Field Test Analysis on Suspected Controlled Substances Report, dated 1 October 2013, reflects white rock like substance tested positive for cocaine. Military Police Report, dated 15 October 2013, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Wrongful Distribution of Cocaine (Off Post); Wrongful Introduction of Cocaine (On Post); Depositing Prohibited Matter in U.S. Mail (Off Post); and, Wrongful Possession of Cocaine (On Post). CID Report on Investigation- Final, dated 10 December 2013, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Possession and Introduction of Cocaine when applicant had a package sent to the on-post residence of SPC J. containing approximately 1.5 grams of cocaine, wherein applicant was the intended recipient. On 2 October 2013, the applicant was interviewed by the MPI, under rights advisal, wherein applicant admitted the package was intended for the applicant; however, invoked applicant's legal rights and terminated the interview upon being confronted about cocaine being discovered within the contents. On 7 October 2013, SPC J. was interviewed wherein SPC J. stated the applicant asked if applicant could have a package sent to SPC J. on- post address wherein SPC J. agreed; however, when the package arrived it was addressed to SPC J. and was subsequently opened by SPC J.'s spouse who fell ill due to an odd odor emitting from the contents. SPC J's spouse contacted emergency medical services (EMS) and the Military Police, wherein she turned the package over to the MPI for further examination. SPC J. provided subsequent test messages from the applicant which identified the applicant as the intended recipient of the package and knowing the contents therein. Trial Counsel, Office of the staff Judge Advocated opined there was probable cause to believe the applicant committed the cited offense(s). Statutes: Article 112a, UCMJ: Wrongful Introduction/Possession/Distribution of a Controlled Substance; and Article 134, UCMJ: Depositing Prohibited Matter in the Mail. FG Article 15, dated 28 February 2014, for without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to applicant's appointed place of duty on two occasions on or about 21 January 2014; for wrongfully possessing 1.5 grams of cocaine on or about 30 September 2013; for wrongfully introducing 1.5 grams of cocaine onto an installation used by the armed forces on or about 30 September 2013; and, for wrongfully sending 1.5 grams of cocaine through the United Postal Service between on or about 24 September 2013 and on or about 30 September 2013.The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $765 per month for two months; and, extra duty for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Fort Drum Samaritan Behavioral Health Center medical records, dated 3 January 2013, reflect the applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Features, predominantly anxiety and depression, with some anger, irritability and features of PTSD; Rule out PTSD - I think there is a strong possibility applicant has Complicated Bereavement Stress of loss of mother three years ago; stress of active combat deployment, in which applicant was involved in many extreme and traumatic events, including the loss of two Soldiers; a sense of not being recognized properly for this, bringing applicant into conflict with some of applicant's superiors at work and disillusionment with the military. Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 10 December 2013, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Post traumatic Stress Disorder; Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood and Job problems. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 December 2013, reflects the applicant was not cleared for any administrative separation pending further evaluation to determine fitness for duty and/or need for MEB. The applicant was enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program from November 2013 due to cocaine abuse. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Anxiety Disorder NOS; and, Cocaine Abuse. Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 25 February 2014, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; and, Other Substance Use Disorder, in partial remission. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; medical 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 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 suffering from PTSD. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of PTSD; Anxiety Disorder NOS and Cocaine Abuse. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 16 December 2013, which indicates the applicant was not cleared for administrative actions until further determination of fitness was conducted. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends having been punished for applicant's mental health and it brings applicant even greater distress whenever applicant thinks of applicant's discharge. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. 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 PTSD, Alcohol Abuse, Anxiety Disorder, Cocaine Abuse, Depression, Military Combat Stress Reaction, Personality Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Major Depression and Opioid Use, which, in the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor could potentially mitigate drug abuse, drug related behaviors, and FTRs 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 in-service BH diagnoses of PTSD, Alcohol Abuse, Anxiety Disorder, Cocaine Abuse, Depression, Military Combat Stress Reaction, and Personality Disorder. Additional post-service BH diagnoses of Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Major Depression and Opioid Use. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor arrived at this finding after reviewing the available information and in accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Hagel Liberal Consideration Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017 Clarifying Guidance, that the applicant's PTSD applicant's drug abuse, drug related behaviors, and FTRs that are part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD, but not fully mitigate some of the drug related behaviors. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, after applying liberal consideration, that applicant's PTSD did not outweigh the partially mitigated drug related behaviors that were the basis for separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD. The Board considered this contention and determined that PTSD partially mitigated applicant's drug abuse, drug related behaviors, and FTRs that were the basis for separation, but concluded that the applicant's overall quality of service, including combat service, as compared to the unmitigated basis for separation was too harsh and therefore voted to upgrade the applicant's characterization in order to be equitable. (2) The applicant contends having been punished for applicant's mental health and it brings applicant even greater distress whenever applicant thinks of applicant's discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to the characterization of discharge being inequitable for the mitigated basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings that lead the Board to grant an upgrade due to the characterization of discharge being inequitable for the mitigated basis for separation. c. The Board determined that the discharge characterization was too harsh for the mitigated basis for separation based on the applicant's quality of service, to include combat service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant had a BH condition which mitigated the applicant's misconduct to the point where the characterization of service was too harsh as compared to the applicant's quality of service, to include combat service. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN (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: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210003193 8