1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his previous request for upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge was upgraded to honorable which he is grateful, however, his other request for RE code update was denied. He again requests the Board reconsider this and have his full request approved. In a records review conducted on 17 March 2022, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation RE code 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: Use of Illegal Drugs / AR 135-178, Chapter 12-1d / NA / NA / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 7 June 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He tested positive for MDMA on 15 October 2005. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 December 1999 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 127 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 21C10, Bridge Crewmember / 6 years, 5 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 10 December 1999 – 23 February 2000 / NIF IADT, 24 February 2000 – 8 June 2000 / NIF USAR, 9 June 2000 – 22 January 2003 / NIF AD, 23 January 2003 – 31 May 2004 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, 23 January 2003 – 31 March 2004 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, ARCAM, NDSM, AFRM-M, ASR, AAM, CAB, OSB, ARCOTR g. Performance Ratings: November 2003 - October 2004 / Fully Capable November 2004 – June 2005 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of his VA Rating Decision, dated 31 May 2006, which reflects he was service connected for PTSD and granted with an evaluation of 50 percent effective 1 April 2004. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; attorney brief; two DD Forms 214; Honorable Discharge certificate; retirement points summary; Orders 06-158-00007; operation qualification record; certificate of achievement; Department of the Army letter; ARCOM certificate; certificate of appreciation; AAM certificate; CAB Memorandum; proof of service Memorandum; PLDC certificate; two DA Form 2166-8; Notification of Separation Proceedings Memorandum; Commander’s Report for Separation; Akers Counseling letter; personnel qualification record; VA rating decision; VA letter; ten third-party letters. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant through counsel states he has earned a bachelor’s degree in Economics and received his accounting certificate. He is employed at the Department of Energy as a Budget Analyst, he is a GS-14 and has held the positon for the last nine years. He is very active in his community. He volunteers with the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, which includes an elected position of commander at VFW Post 9862, He also volunteers his time at Izaak Walton in Damascus, Maryland restoring woodlands. 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 135-178 prescribes the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. (1) Paragraph 2-9a prescribes an honorable characterization 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. (2) Chapter 12, 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, and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (3) Paragraph 12-1d, prescribes illegal drug use is serious misconduct. Discharge action normally will be based upon commission of a serious offense. However, relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug offense may be combined with one or more disciplinary infractions or incidents or other misconduct and processed for discharge. (4) Paragraph 12-8, states an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge may be 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 RE code change. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the applicant’s discharge from the Army Reserve. The applicant AMHRR record does contain a properly constituted discharge order: Orders 19-344-00009, dated 10 December 2019. The orders indicate the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of honorable. The applicant contends he was under extreme stress due to poor leadership by his command. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the poor leadership by his command. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends he used alcohol to self-medicate. 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. 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 desires to rejoin the Military Service. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The applicant’s discharge orders do not reflect the reentry code; therefore, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends he has obtained employment and volunteers in his 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 the applicant’s DOD and VA health records, the applicant’s statement, and or civilian provider documentation. The Applicant was diagnosed with PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The PTSD was diagnosed and service-connected by the VA. Service connection establishes the condition existed during service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The board’s medical advisor opined that given the natural sequela between PTSD and self-medicating substances the misconduct that led to the applicant’s separation is mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. The applicant’s discharge characterization is already Honorable, therefore no further change can be made to applicant’s discharge characterization because of any applicant condition or experience. The applicant’s RE code remain appropriate as the PTSD mitigates but does not wholly excuse the misconduct leading to separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends he was under extreme stress due to poor leadership by his command and used alcohol to self-medicate. The Board considered this contention but concluded no change was warranted to applicant’s discharge RE code because of this contention. (2) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. The Board determined Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes, if appropriate based on the applicant’s RE code. c. The Board determined 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 contention(s) 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. 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. The Misconduct did occur and the applicant responsibility while mitigated is not wholly excused. 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 AR20210003205 1