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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests, through counsel, an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was inequitable because the applicant's service-related mental health issues prompted the single instance of minor misconduct which led to the discharge. The discharge was unjust and inequitable based on the veteran's service and commitment to fellow service members, family, and own self- improvement. The petition should be granted because the applicant's deployment and readjustment caused the "invisible wounds" resulting in less than honorable discharge. The applicant's experiences in the military caused severe mental health issues, which the applicant sought to treat with cocaine; the sole act of misconduct for discharged. In considering petition, the Board should give it "liberal consideration" because it is based on "matters relating to mental health conditions," a standard originally set forth in the "Hagel Memo." The ADRB should upgrade the petition based on the totality of the applicant's circumstances. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD-related conditions by multiple licensed psychologists soon after returning from deployment in Bahrain, particularly, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety, conditions which may excuse or mitigate the discharge. The applicant's conditions began and continued through military service and the attempt to take own life occurred while in the Army. Department of Veterans Affairs Counselor recognized the applicant's conditions were service-connected. The applicant's conditions must be "liberally considered as excusing or mitigating the discharge." The applicant's conditions and experiences outweigh the discharge. For the applicant's service, received praise and several awards and commendations from supervisors. The Army has administered significant punishment on the applicant through Field Grade Article 15 and the applicant was further punished by the termination of Army career. The applicant's counselor states the applicant could benefit from education benefits, which cannot be received due to discharge status. Counsel states the ADRB should upgrade the applicant's discharge and change reenlistment code, separation authority, separation code, and narrative reason. Counsel further describes the applicant's post-service struggles with mental conditions and despite the applicant's struggle, was able to commit to family and work towards educational and employment goals. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. In a records review conducted on 6 January 2022, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's service-connected Chronic Adjustment Disorder that fully mitigated the applicant's basis for separation. Therefore, 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 (Drug Abuse) / AR 635-200 / Paragraph 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 May 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 May 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 16 February 2016, an analysis was conducted, and the applicant tested positive for cocaine, a schedule II controlled substance, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ, conduct being prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the armed forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 9 May 2016, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 11 May 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 July 2013 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / HS Graduate / 105 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 25N10, Nodal Network Systems / 2 years, 10 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Bahrain (11 October 2014 - 11 October 2015) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, GWOTEM, ASR, OSR, MOVSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum, subject: Notification of Confirmation of Positive Urinalysis Results, dated 4 March 2016, reflects biochemical testing identified the applicant as positive use of cocaine. Memorandum, subject: Commander's Report - Proposed Separation Under AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), Misconduct - Abuse of Illegal Drugs [Applicant], dated 9 May 2016, reflects the applicant received a FG Article 15, dated 30 March 2016, for violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $783 pay for two months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Two Developmental Counseling Forms for positive urinalysis results and pending administrative separation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided in-service medical records from 16 October 2015 to 17 May 2016, reflecting the applicant underwent a post- deployment medical screening and the medical provider identified concerns and indicated the applicant needed referrals for physical and mental health. The provider recommended the referrals based on the applicant having possible depression and lower back pain/headaches. The applicant was hospitalized from 15 March to 29 March 2016 for suicidal ideations with a plan to cut a wrist but the applicant's battle buddy intervened. The applicant was hospitalized from 5 April to 11 April 2016 for verbalizing thoughts of wanting to harm members of the chain of command in the context of having received an Article 15. On 19 February 2016 the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. The applicant was later diagnosed with: Cocaine use, unspecified with unspecified cocaine-induced disorder and adjustment disorder, unspecified. The applicant self-referred to Behavioral Health to address trouble sleeping, irritability towards others, poor concentration, and poor short time recall, onset October 2015, post deployment to Bahrain. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 March 2016, reflects the evaluation was due to a hospital discharge. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong; could participate in the proceedings; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant was screened for mild PTSD and mild TBI with negative results. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder Anxious Depressed Mood and Cocaine Abuse. A temporary profile with an "S" rating of 90 days was activated to expire on 27 June 2016. Physical Profile, dated 29 March 2016, reflects the applicant had the medical conditions: Adjustment Disorder Anxious Depress Mood and Cocaine Abuse. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 March 2016, reflects the applicant was cleared for the separation process. The applicant was screened for TBI and PTSD with negative results and the applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Cocaine Use, Unspecified with Unspecified Cocaine-Induced Disorder. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 April 2016, reflects the evaluation was provided due to hospital discharge. The applicant was unfit for duty due to a personality disorder or other mental health condition that did not amount to a physical disability; could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and was cleared for administrative actions. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct; a temporary profile with an "S" rating of 3 was activated to expire on 20 April 2016. The applicant was receiving psychotropic medications which could have impacted deployability. Physical Profile, dated 6 April 2016, reflects the applicant had the medical conditions: Depression and Anxiety. Report of Medical History, dated 8 April 2016, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Patient is seeing Behavioral Health for sleep and anxiety. The applicant provided VA Letter, dated 25 March 2019, reflecting the applicant was rated 70 percent disability for: Adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, to include symptoms of chronic sleep impairment. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Counsel Memorandum (Legal Brief); self- authored statement; DD Form 4; DD Form 214; two third party statements; military service medical documents; award documents; case separation documents; three VA letters; Memorandum, subject: Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment ("Kurta Memo"); Memorandum, subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ("Hagel Memo"). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, has been committed to family and self-improvement; no longer smokes and has not used illicit drugs again; completed a semester of college with a 3.33 GPA; pursuing higher educational goals and the goal to become competitive for employment; and desires to become a productive member of society. 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(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. (7) Chapter 15 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. 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable 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 the separation authority should be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2). Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the separation authority, entered in block 25 and it states to obtain the correct entry from regulatory or directives authorizing the separation. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Drug Abuse)," and the separation code is "JKK." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), is "JKK." The applicant requests an RE code change. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-210, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of "4." An RE code of "4" cannot be waived, and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The applicant contends suffering from adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety, which affected behavior and led to discharge. The applicant provided VA medical records reflecting rated 70 percent disability for adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, to include symptoms of chronic sleep impairment. The applicant's AMHRR supports diagnoses of adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct; adjustment disorder anxious depressed mood; and cocaine use, unspecified with unspecified cocaine-induced disorder. The applicant underwent three mental status evaluations. The MSE conducted on 6 April 2016, reflects the applicant was unfit for duty due to a personality disorder or other mental health condition that did not amount to a physical disability; could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and was cleared for administrative actions. The applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct. The MSEs were considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends the offense leading to the discharge was minor. The AMHRR indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. The applicant contends being committed to family and self-improvement; no longer smokes and has not used illicit drugs again; completed a semester of college with a 3.33 GPA; pursuing higher educational goals and the goal to become competitive for employment; and desires to become a productive member of society. 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 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. 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 record and determined the applicant was diagnosed in-service with Adjustment Disorder that has also been service connected by the VA that could mitigate applicant's basis of separation. (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 was diagnosed with an in- service Adjustment Disorder by the VA. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor opined that while an Adjustment Disorder is not typically a mitigating BH Condition under Liberal Consideration guidance, the record reveals that applicant's Adjustment Disorder symptoms were untreated at the time of the misconduct that led to his separation, and applicant was more likely than not self-medicating his BH condition with substance use that was the basis for separation, and is therefore mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant's BH condition outweighed the applicant's basis for separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends suffering from adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety, which affected behavior and led to discharge. The Board considered this contention and voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable. (2) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered this contention. (3) 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. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's BH condition that mitigated applicant's basis for separation. Therefore, 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 of Chronic Adjustment Disorder which mitigated the applicant's misconduct of testing positive for a self-medicated use of a schedule II controlled substance. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts. 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: 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 AR20210003320 1