1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 3 June 2020 b. Date Received: 9 June 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change from “Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure” to “Secretarial Authority” and a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, of being unjustly discharged prior to being given a meaningful opportunity to overcome addition through ASAP. The applicant contends being stead-fast in a commitment to beating drug addiction which was the reason for self-reporting to ASAP. However, unfortunately, the applicant relapsed during treatment and was summarily deemed a rehabilitation failure and discharged by the command. The applicant believes this unjust treatment was just another setback for her to overcome and better herself, which she ultimately has. The applicant now petitions the Honorable Board to remove the stain of being unfavorably discharged, ensuring she is no longer hindered with being discharged from the Army because of being an Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 12 May 2023, 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: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure / AR 635-200 / Chapter 9 / JPD / RE-4 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 5 December 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 October 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: being unable to successfully complete the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 23 October 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: None (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 February 2014 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68C10, Practical Nurse Specialist / 3 years, 9 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 5 December 2013 to 10 February 2014 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum for Record, dated 28 August 2017, reflect the Company Commander, in consultation with ASAP rehabilitation team, determined that further rehabilitation efforts for the applicant were not practical, and declared applicant to be a rehabilitation failure. Negative counseling statement for misconduct, dated 29 August 2016, for misconduct. Counseling statement reflects applicant was admitted to detox treatment on 6 July 2017. Applicant completed detox and began intake. The applicant refused care and left the facility against medical advice within hours of initial treatment. On 3 August 2017, applicant was allowed re-admittance to begin 28-day treatment. Upon admission, applicant tested positive for a medication not prescribed to her. By 9 August 2017, applicant refused services again against medical advice. Applicant was transferred to lower level care on 11 August 2017. On 15 August 2017, applicant tested positive for a medication not prescribed to her. On 18 August 2017, applicant admitted in group services to drinking wine in the evenings to relax. Company Commander determined that applicant was also non-compliant in the impaired provider program due to continued use of substances and leaving treatment against medical advice on two occasions. In consultation with SUDCC staff, Company Commander declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): See below (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 August 2017, indicating the applicant was screened for substance misuse evaluation on 5 July 2017, due to self-report Heroin and Alcohol use. As a result of this assessment, the applicant was enrolled in SUDCC treatment on 5 July 2017. The applicant was referred to detox treatment. The applicant was diagnosed with F11.20 Opioid Use Disorder, Severe (Heroin-Injection) and F10.20, Alcohol use Disorder, Moderate. It was noted that the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciated the difference between right and wrong. It was also noted that the applicant was under mandatory care for a SUD. The SUD treatment provider recommended administrative separation, IAW AR 635-200, Chapter 9 or AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4. The applicant had met criteria for rehabilitation failure due to not engaging in treatment and continuing to use substances while engaging in treatment. On 6 July 2017, the applicant was admitted to detox treatment at Cedar Hills hospital with a step-down to Madigan RTF. The applicant completed detox and began intake into Madigan FTF. Within the initial hours of treatment, the applicant refused care and left the facility against medical advice. On 3 August 2017, the applicant was allowed to be admitted back into Madigan FTF to begin substance use treatment for 28 days. Upon admission the applicant tested positive for Buprenorphine, a d medication not prescribed to the applicant by military personnel. By 9 August 2017, the applicant refused services again and left treatment again against medical advice. The applicant was stepped down to AMIOP care and began services on 11 August 2017. On 15 August 2017, the applicant tested positive for Benzodiazepines, in which the applicant did not have a current prescription. The applicant admitted in group on 18 August 2017, of having been drinking wine in the evenings to relax. The applicant was non-compliant in the impaired provider program due to continued use of substances and leaving treatment against medical advice on two occasions. As outlined in the treatment plan, the applicant was directed to abstain from any alcohol or drug use. In view of the applicant failure to display significant progress toward rehabilitation, it was the considered opinion of the Commander that the applicant had exhausted resources for achieving successful rehabilitation. The SUDCC staff concurred with the Commander’s decision to declare the applicant a rehabilitation failure and initiated discharge action. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; four-page legal brief to include exhibits 1- 11; DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 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), dated 25 September 2019, 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 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. (4) Paragraph 9-4 stipulates the service of Soldiers discharged under this section will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required. An honorable discharge is mandated in any case in which the Government initially introduces into the final discharge process limited use evidence as defined by AR 600–85, paragraph 6–4. (5) 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 “JPD” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure. 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 a narrative reason change from “Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure” to “Secretarial Authority” and a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. Evidence in the AMHRR indicates separation action was initiated against the applicant for being unable to successfully complete the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP). The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200 with a honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this chapter is “Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure,” and the separation code is “JPD.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the 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 seeks relief contending of being unjustly discharged prior to being given a meaningful opportunity to overcome addition through ASAP. The applicant contends being stead-fast in a commitment to beating drug addiction which was the reason for self-reporting to ASAP. However, unfortunately, the applicant relapsed during treatment and was summarily deemed a rehabilitation failure and discharged by the command. The applicant believes this unjust treatment was just another setback for her to overcome and better herself, which she ultimately has. The applicant now petitions the Honorable Board to remove the stain of being unfavorably discharged, ensuring she is no longer hindered with being discharged from the Army because of being an Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure. The applicant’s contentions were noted; evidence in the AMHRR indicates; the applicant was screened for substance misuse evaluation on 5 July 2017, due to self-report Heroin and Alcohol use. As a result of this assessment, the applicant was enrolled in SUDCC treatment on 5 July 2017. The applicant was referred to detox treatment. The applicant was diagnosed with F11.20 Opioid Use Disorder, Severe (Heroin-Injection) and F10.20, Alcohol use Disorder, Moderate. It was noted that the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciated the difference between right and wrong. Additionally, the applicant was under mandatory care for a SUD. The SUD treatment provider recommended administrative separation, IAW AR 635-200, Chapter 9, rehabilitation failure, due to the applicant not engaging in treatment and continuing to use substances while engaging in treatment. On 6 July 2017, the applicant was admitted to detox treatment at Cedar Hills hospital with a step-down to Madigan RTF. The applicant completed detox and began intake into Madigan FTF. Within the initial hours of treatment, the applicant refused care and left the facility against medical advice. On 3 August 2017, the applicant was allowed to be admitted back into Madigan FTF to begin substance use treatment for 28 days. Upon admission the applicant tested positive for Buprenorphine, a d medication not prescribed to the applicant by military personnel. By 9 August 2017, the applicant refused services again and left treatment again against medical advice. The applicant was stepped down to AMIOP care and began services on 11 August 2017. On 15 August 2017, the applicant tested positive for Benzodiazepines, in which the applicant did not have a current prescription. The applicant admitted in group on 18 August 2017, of having been drinking wine in the evenings to relax. The applicant was non- compliant in the impaired provider program due to continued use of substances and leaving treatment against medical advice on two occasions. As outlined in the treatment plan, the applicant was directed to abstain from any alcohol or drug use. In view of the applicant failure to display significant progress toward rehabilitation, it was the considered opinion of the Commander that the applicant had exhausted resources for achieving successful rehabilitation. The SUDCC staff concurred with the Commander’s decision to declare the applicant a rehabilitation failure and initiated discharge action. 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, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnosis: The applicant held an in- service behavioral health diagnosis of Other Specified Depressive Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held an in-service behavioral health diagnosis of Other Specified Depressive Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there is no medical mitigation given the diagnosis was secondary to the substance use and not the cause of the substance use. Additionally, records do not support an unjust discharge or lack of opportunity to remain in-service. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Other Specified Depressive Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – unable to successfully complete ASAP – for the aforementioned reason. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant seeks relief contending of being unjustly discharged prior to being given a meaningful opportunity to overcome addiction through ASAP. The applicant contends being stead-fast in a commitment to beating drug addiction which was the reason for self- reporting to ASAP. However, unfortunately, the applicant relapsed during treatment and was summarily deemed a rehabilitation failure and discharged by the command. The Board considered this contention, and noted the support received from Command, and determined there is insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command, and that the applicant’s assertion alone does not warrant an upgrade of the Narrative reason for separation, or SPD or RE codes. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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 because the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Other Specified Depressive Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – unable to successfully complete ASAP, and as such 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 AR20210005333 1