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, through counsel, requests an upgrade to RE-code. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant has documented PTSD and TBI and asks the Board liberally grant the petition for discharge upgrade. The applicant claims that applicant deployed to Afghanistan in 2013 and was initially seen in theater for complaints of anger, irritability, headaches and sleep problems. The i applicant claims that nitial diagnosis was Combat and Operational Stress Reaction. The applicant claims that applicant sustained a TBI injury after the vehicle rolled over an IED. The applicant claims that applicant was placed in the gunner position when the vehicle was involved in a pressure plate IED explosion. The applicant claims that applicant was seen at Camp Shelby for demobilization, and referred to the WTU for further treatment of multiple conditions. The applicant claims that applicant was diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder NOS on 30 December 2013. On 13 May 2014, applicant claims that the diagnosis was revised to PTSD. In June 2014, the applicant claims that applicant attempted suicide, resulting in a 12-day stay at an acute inpatient psychiatry service center. The applicant claims that applicant was then transferred for further residential care for PTSD and substance abuse. The applicant claims that applicant was then admitted to the Intensive Outpatient Program for the PTSD, and also was receiving treatment at the ASAP for marijuana usage. The applicant claims that applicant was determined to have sustained a Grade 2 concussion. The applicant claims that applicant was referred to a Medical Evaluation Board for the PTSD and TBI. However, applicant claims that the medical disability evaluation process was not completed, as the command chose to separate the applicant for drug abuse instead. The applicant claims that applicant was beginning to get mental health treatment and also struggling with drug abuse. On 6 January 2014, the applicant claims that applicant participated in a urine drug test. The applicant claims that results revealed the applicant tested positive for THC and the applicant received a Field Grade Article 15 and was reduced to E-4. In addition, the applicant claims that applicant was enrolled in the ASAP and was tested monthly, and on 4 April 2014 was free from THC in the applicant's system. The applicant claims that applicant had a relapse in the drug use, and on 10 April 2014, the applicant was notified there was another positive drug use for THC. Applicant claims that Captain W. used this information to order a probable cause urinalysis on 28 April 2014, which revealed THC in the applicant's system. On 13 May 2014, the applicant claims that applicant was deemed a Rehabilitation Failure of ASAP. On 16 May 2014, the applicant claims that applicant was again issued a Field Grade Article 15 for the probable cause urinalysis results and reduced to E-3. The applicant claims that applicant's treating physicians believed the applicant's mental health would not improve over the next five years, and the rigors of Soldiering would most likely worsen the applicant's condition. The applicant claims that despite the applicant's documented PTSD and documented struggle with marijuana as a method of coping with the PTSD and TBI, the command separated the applicant for serious misconduct for Drug Abuse. The applicant claims that applicant is a Purple Heart recipient and was fully cooperative in the mental health treatment, and continued to struggle with substance abuse in order to help cope with the stress and pain of the applicant's injuries. The applicant claims that applicant served the country well, and continues to pay the price from the applicant's sacrifice abroad. Since separation from the military, the applicant claims that applicant has struggled to get the care the applicant needs at the VA due to so many service member's needing care and not enough appointments. The applicant claims that applicant is taking college classes at George State University, and tries to keep the applicant's mind busy by volunteering with the son's baseball team. The applicant claims that applicant continues to struggle with PTSD, and hopes the Board can take corrective action in helping the applicant get the help the applicant needs. In a records review conducted on 26 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, Chapter 5-3 / JFF / RE-4 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 10 April 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 5 September 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Misconduct - Abuse of illegal drugs. Soldier test positive for THC on 6 January 2014 and 28 April 2014. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 18 August 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 March 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 April 2013 / 352 days (OAD) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / some college / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 13B20, Cannon Crewmember / 5 years, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 23 March 2010 - 11 May 2010 / NIF IADT, 12 May 2010 - 28 August 2010 / HD ARNG, 29 August 2010 - 11 April 2013 / NIF e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA, Afghanistan (16 April 2013 - 4 December 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, PH, ARCOM, AAM-2, ARCAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 13 January 2014, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 163>LOL, during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing, conducted on 6 January 2014. FG Article 15, dated 18 February 2014, for wrongfully using marijuana a scheduled I controlled substance on or about 6 December 2013 and 6 January 2014. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1,107 pay per month for two months; of which one month of $1,107 pay, suspended; 1-day extra duty; restriction to the limits of Fort Benning, Georgia; and an oral reprimand. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 30 April 2014, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC, during a Probable Cause (PO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 28 April 2014. Memorandum, dated 13 May 2014, reflects the applicant was a rehabilitation failure in the Army Substance Abuse Program. FG Article 15, dated 16 May 2014, for wrongfully using marijuana a schedule I controlled substance on between 27 March 2014 and 28 April 2014. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $1,017 pay (suspended); extra duty and restriction for 15 days; and, an oral reprimand. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 February 2014, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; Major Depressive Disorder; History of Concussion; Late Effects of head Injury and Axis III mTBI; chronic pain secondary to lower back and right knee injury. Soldier is not psychiatrically cleared at this time due to mTBI and PTSD conditions which have not had sufficient evaluation and treatment. Soldier has multiple pending appointments in TBI clinic for neuropsychological testing and behavioral health. Soldier sustained a head injury while deployed when the MRAP exploded (3 June 2013) after rolling over a pressure plate IED and lost consciousness. Soldier continues to struggle with headaches, memory problems, and mood symptoms likely associated with this incident. Soldier referred for MSE evaluation for Chapter 14. SI/HI convincingly denied. Observed short memory problems, anxiety, irritability and depressed mood; no evidence of thought disorder or psychotic symptoms. Soldier is mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and has the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative/board proceedings. However, The Soldier is less than one year from a head injury in theater and likely does not meet retention standards prescribed in AR 40- 501; condition warrants further treatment and/or disposition through medical channels. Soldier is not psychiatrically cleared for administrative action by command at this point in time. cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 May 2014, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I PTSD, MDD and TBI; and Axis III mTBI chronic pain secondary to lower back and knee injury, Soldier does not meet retention standards and will require ongoing treatment for an extended period of time > one year. During the time the Soldier will more than likely behave in a manner unbecoming to an active duty Soldier. The Soldier uses substances to self-medicate. Soldier is not in a specific program. Soldier will need VA services when no longer in the military. The applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. Report of Medical Examination, dated 29 May 2014, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Traumatic Brain Injury with headaches; PTSD; and hearing loss. Health Record, dated 10 September 2014, reflects the applicant suffers from PTSD and TBI. Strongly feel the use of marijuana was due to the PTSD and traumatic brain injury. The Soldier has done everything which has been asked to do regarding recovery and healing. The Soldier most recently completed a six-week inpatient program for Soldiers with substance abuse and PTSD. The Soldier has continued therapy with all Behavioral Health providers. The Soldier continues sessions weekly with ASAP. Soldier is an active participant in the behavioral health care. The Soldier (who is also a Purple Heart recipient) has been a model patient and is strongly motivated to continue recovery. Soldier is hopeful regarding the future and during the treatment has made tremendous progress. Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 14 October 2014, reflects the following diagnosis: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Mild Neurocognitive Disorder due to TBI. Medical Evaluation Board Behavioral Health Only, reflects diagnoses not meeting medical retention standards: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Mild Neurocognitive Disorder due to TBI. Diagnoses Meeting Medical Retention Standards: Cannabis use Disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Legal Brief; Medical Evaluation Board Narrative Summary; two DA Forms 2627; DA Form 4856; ASAP Memorandum; Medical Evaluation Board Behavioral Health Summary; DA Form 3822; Health Record; Purple Heart Certificate. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is taking college classes at George State University, and tries to keep busy by volunteering with the son's baseball team. 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 memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. (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(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. 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 "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). 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-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable 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 contends suffering from PTSD and TBI. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in service PTSD and TBI. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 24 February 2014, which indicates the applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; Major Depressive Disorder; History of Concussion; Late Effects of head Injury and Axis III mTBI; chronic pain secondary to lower back and right knee injury. Soldier is not psychiatrically cleared at this time due to mTBI and PTSD conditions which have not had sufficient evaluation and treatment. The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 13 May 2014, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I PTSD, MDD and TBI; and Axis III mTBI chronic pain secondary to lower back and knee injury, Soldier does not meet retention standards and will require ongoing treatment for an extended period of time > one year. During the time the Soldier will more than likely behave in a manner unbecoming to an active duty Soldier. The Soldier uses substances to self-medicate. Soldier is not in a specific program. Soldier will need VA services when no longer in the military. The applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. 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 despite the applicant's documented PTSD and documented struggle with marijuana as a method of coping with the PTSD and TBI, the command separated the applicant for serious misconduct for Drug Abuse. 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. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran's benefits 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 claims that applicant is taking college classes at George State University, and tries to keep busy by volunteering with the son's baseball team. 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 under Secretarial Authority, so there is no characterization or narrative upgrade available, and applicant's BH conditions could not mitigate the RE-code. (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 Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD and TBI. The Board liberally considered this contention, however the applicant currently holds an Honorable discharge, and voted that no further upgrade is warranted based on applicant's BH conditions. (2) The applicant contends despite the applicant's documented PTSD and documented struggle with marijuana as a method of coping with the PTSD and TBI, the command separated the applicant for serious misconduct for Drug Abuse. The Board liberally considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to the applicant holding an Honorable discharge, and no change to the RE-code is warranted based on this contention. (3) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The applicant currently holds an Honorable discharge, and the Board determined no further upgrade is warranted based on applicant's prior service, including a combat tour. (4) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. The applicant currently holds an Honorable discharge that would allow applicant to obtain veterans benefits. (5) The applicant contends taking college classes at George State University, and tries to keep busy by volunteering with the son's baseball team. The applicant currently holds an Honorable discharge, and the Board determined that no further upgrade is warranted based on applicant's post service accomplishments. 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 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 they were already Secretarial Authority and no further relief is available. (3) The Board voted not to change applicant's discharge RE code because the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, and the applicant's Adjustment Disorder and Anxiety with major depression warrant the RE-4 code as applicant's BH conditions make applicant not compatible with any future military service. 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 AR20210003254 1