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, his discharge was based upon a single incident. One isolated occurrence of drug use in 20 months of service, with no other adverse actions. The drug in question was marijuana. This was after a combat tour in Afghanistan with the 101 Airborne. No other disciplinary action was offered under the UCMJ. He has applied to the VA for a claim of PTSD for the combat tour in country. The Army could have sent him to a class for substance abuse and provided a lesser discipline under UCMJ Article 15. The reaction from the Army was by an NCO who had not deployed with the unit. He successfully completed the substance abuse requirement imposed by the Army, where he spent 45 days of treatment. Then without rhyme or reason, he was separated. In a records review conducted on 9 November 2021, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 September 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 July 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: Under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, the applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant tested positive for the use of marijuana on 15 December 2010. In addition, he was absent from his unit from on or about 30 November 2010 to on or about 11 December 2010, from on or about 17 March 2011 to on or about 17 April 2011, and from on or about 7 June 2011 to on or about 14 June 2011. Furthermore, he had failed to report to his appointed place of duty on numerous occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 August 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 24 August 2011, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 September 2011 / the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14- 12c, Commission of a Serious Offense Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 October 2009 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / High School / 89 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 1 year, 11 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 27 February 2008 – 27 March 2008 / UNC (Break in Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (16 August 2010 – 30 November 2010 f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: DD Form 2624 with allied Commander’s notification, dated 29 December 2010, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC (Positive), during an Inspection Other (IO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 15 December 2010. Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 24 January 2011, reflects the applicant was mentally responsible with a clear thinking process and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. FG Article 15, dated 8 March 2011, for on or about 30 November 2010, with intent to avoid hazardous duty upon completion of authorized leave, quit his unit, and did remain so absent in desertion until on or about 11 December 2010; and, for the wrongful use of marijuana (between 17 November and 15 December 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $822 pay per month for two months (suspended); extra duty and restriction for 30 days; and, an oral reprimand. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 21 March 2011, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 8 March 2011, was vacated because the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 10 March 2011. Nine Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 30 November 2010; From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective date, 11 December 2010; From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective date; 17 March 2011; From “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” effective date 16 April 2011; From “DFR” to “PDY,” effective date 17 April 2011; From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective date 7 June 2011; From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 14 June 2011; From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective date 3 August 2011; and, From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 16 August 2011. Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, dated 14 July 2011, shows the applicant was charged with five specification of Article 86, UCMJ. The applicant was found guilty of all five specifications, consistent with the plea: Specification 1: AWOL on or about 7 June 2011 to on or about 14 June 2011; Specification 2: AWOL on or about 17 March to on or about 17 April 2011; Specification 3: Fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about 14 March 2011; Specification 4: Fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about 11 March 2011; and, Specification 5: Fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about 1 March 2011. The Sentence adjudged: Reduction to E-1 and restriction for 60 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 59 days: AWOL, 30 November 2010 – 11 December 2010 / NIF AWOL, 17 March 2011 – 17 April 2011 / NIF AWOL, 7 June 2011 – 14 June 2011 / NIF AWOL, 3 August 2011 – 13 August 2011 / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: DD Form 2808, shows a diagnoses of mental health concerns. The applicant was advised to continue with BH until released from care. DD form 2807-1, dated 16 February 2011, shows the applicant was in BH for BH issues. He reported he had PTSD but was not given a diagnosis. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Affidavit; NPRC letter; DD Form 214; Permanent Orders 321-011; and, Case Management Division letter. 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable 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 waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. DISCUSSION 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 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 he suffers from PTSD, which was related to his deployment. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 24 January 2011, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends he was denied due process. 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 applicant claims that he had PTSD that may excuse or mitigate the basis for separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed one time with Anxiety Disorder and was also diagnosed multiple times with various substance use disorders during military service. The applicant contends that he had PTSD during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. Even after reviewing the available information and in accordance with the Liberal Consideration Memorandum and Clarifying Guidance, the applicant does not have any mitigating diagnosis for his drug usage, AWOLs, and FTRs, despite having a one-time diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the ADRB’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant’s drug abuse, AWOL, and FTRs outweighed the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder diagnosis. Further, the basis for the applicant’s separation outweighs the applicant’s contention of PTSD. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Due to the three different reasons listed on basis for separation (FTR, AWOL, Drug Abuse), this contention is invalid. Without mitigating factors for the Board to consider, the discharge upgrade request is denied. (2) The applicant contends he suffers from PTSD which was related to his deployment. The Board liberally considered the weight of the evidence regarding applicant’s contention of PTSD, but found it insufficient to outweigh the basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends he was denied due process. The weight of the evidence, even after applying liberal consideration to applicant’s contention that due process was denied, supports the Board’s conclusion that the applicant was discharged by an administrative board in August 2011 after providing applicant full administrative due process. (4) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The record confirms the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By abusing marijuana, FTR, and being AWOL, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder and contention of PTSD did not mitigate the offenses of FTR, AWOL, marijuana abuse. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. ? 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210003357 1