1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 11 August 2020 b. Date Received: 21 August 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to an honorable discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, to have received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for failing a urinalysis (Lisdexamfetamine). The applicant is requesting a character of service change because of the label being placed on the applicant due to a mental health condition. The drug abuse narrative reason for the applicant’s condition, Attention Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), does not seem fair. The medication that the applicant ingested was the applicant’s civilian prescribed medication, however, the military deemed it out of date. Since the applicant’s separation, the applicant has thrived as a civilian using the same medication that the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Medical Center now supplies the applicant on a monthly basis for ADHD. The incident was the applicant’s first and only incident during military service. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 22 September 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: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200, Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 3 August 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: Date unspecified (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant wrongfully used D-Amphetamines between on or about 7 January 2012 and on or about 17 January 2012. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 31 May 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 July 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 March 2011 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / High School Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 15B10, Aircraft Powerplant Repairer / 1 year, 4 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, 2 February 2012, shows the applicant tested positive for DAMP 2977 (Dextroamphetamine), during an Inspection Other (IO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 17 January 2012. Medical Record Consultation Sheet, 7 February 2012, shows the applicant was still positive and there was no authorized prescription in the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) or Composite Health Care System (CHCS1). Memorandum, Commander’s Notification and Required Response to a Positive Urine Test Report, 10 February 2012, shows the applicant tested positive for DAMP. The medical review officer determined on 7 February 2012 “No medically legitimate use. Verify POSITIVE.” DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), 28 February 2012, states in part, the applicant denied knowingly ingesting any substance that would cause the applicant to have a positive drug test. The only prescribed medicines that the applicant took were issued by the Army. CID Report of Investigation - Initial, 1 March 2012, shows an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of wrongful use of dangerous drugs when the applicant submitted a urine specimen on 17 January 2012, during the conduct of a unit urinalysis test, which subsequently tested positive for Dextroamphetamine. The applicant was interviewed and denied consuming Amphetamines. DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), 5 March 2012, reflects the applicant was flagged for involuntary separation/field initiated (BA), effective 15 February 2012. DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), 6 March 2012, states before joining the military the applicant was diagnosed with ADHD. The applicant decided to deny that the condition ever existed and enlisted. Until the weekend of 15 January 2012, the applicant was drug free. On 16 January 2012 while visiting home, the applicant came across an old prescription (Vyvanse 30mg) and took a pill when the applicant was headed back to Fort Campbell in order to make it in time for physical training. CID Report of Investigation - 2nd Status, 7 March 2012, shows the applicant was reinterviewed and admitted to knowingly consuming Vyvanse, a prescription medication for ADHD disorder. Developmental Counseling Form for being recommended for separation due to a positive urinalysis. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), 21 March 2012, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. Report of Medical History, 22 March 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Tested for ADHD, ongoing. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: VA Psychologist letter, 23 October 2015, states the applicant experiences clinically significant difficulties with sustained attention and concentration which can date back to the applicant’s childhood. The applicant was diagnosed with ADHD. VA Prescription History, shows the applicant had an active prescription for Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate 50mg in August 2020. (2) AMHRR Listed: MSE as described in previous paragraph 4h. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored letter, third party letter, VA Psychologist letter, Degree Progression, and VA Prescription History. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Five classes from undergrad graduation after attempting more than 170 credits. Increased grade point average to a 2.99 (3.06 if the applicant’s summer grades were factored). 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 PTSD, 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. 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: (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) 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 Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant was assigned to B Company, 3rd Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, Fort Campbell, KY when the applicant tested positive for DAMP. The applicant initially denied consuming Amphetamines. After being reinterviewed, the applicant admitted to knowingly consuming Vyvanse, a prescription medication for ADHD disorder. The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows on 3 August 2012, the applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service, completing 1 year, 4 months, and 26 days of net active service. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant’s character of service should be changed because of the label being placed on the applicant due to a mental health condition. The applicant provided a VA Psychologist letter, 23 October 2015, states the applicant experiences clinically significant difficulties with sustained attention and concentration which can date back to the applicant’s childhood. The applicant was diagnosed with ADHD. The applicant’s AMHRR contains a Report of Medical History, 22 March 2012, wherein the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Tested for ADHD, ongoing. The applicant contends, in effect, the drug abuse narrative reason for the applicant’s condition, ADHD, does not seem fair. The applicant’s AMHRR contains a Report of Medical History, 22 March 2012, wherein the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Tested for ADHD, ongoing. The applicant contends, in effect, the medication that the applicant ingested was the applicant’s civilian prescribed medication, however, the military deemed it out of date. The applicant’s AMHRR contains a sworn statement, 6 March 2012, that states before joining the military the applicant was diagnosed with ADHD. On 16 January 2012 while visiting home, the applicant came across an old prescription (Vyvanse 30mg) and took a pill when the applicant was headed back to Fort Campbell. The applicant contends, in effect, since the applicant’s separation, the applicant has been using the same medication that the VA Medical Center now supplies the applicant on a monthly basis for ADHD. The applicant provided a VA prescription history, showing the applicant had an active prescription for Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate 50mg in August 2020. The applicant contends, in effect, the incident was the applicant’s first and only incident during military service. AR 635-200, paragraph 3-5, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends, in effect, to have five classes remaining for undergrad graduation after attempting more than 170 credits. Increased grade point average to a 2.99 (3.06 if the applicant’s summer grades were factored). The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case- by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in- service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. The third party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant serving in Army. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnosis: ADHD (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held and holds a diagnosis of ADHD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant’s statements reflect a conscious decision to use an old stimulant script to stay awake while driving; he was cognitively intact and not driven by impulsivity as he consciously considered his fatigue and how the properties of a stimulant could remedy fatigue resulting in purposeful problem solving and resulting choice to misuse the stimulant medication. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant’s character of service should be changed because of the label being placed on the applicant due to a mental health condition. The Board considered this contention and found no corroborating evidence to support the assertion. 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. In light of the current evidence of record, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, the drug abuse narrative reason for the applicant’s condition, ADHD, does not seem fair. The Board considered this contention and found the applicant’s discharge proper and equitable due to the behavior health non-mitigation of the misconduct. (3) The applicant contends, in effect, the medication that the applicant ingested was the applicant’s civilian prescribed medication, however, the military deemed it out of date. The Board considered this contention however found the applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends, in effect, the incident was the applicant’s first and only incident during military service. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s number of indiscretions does not outweigh the misconduct. (5) The applicant contends, in effect, since the applicant’s separation, the applicant has been using the same medication that the VA Medical Center now supplies the applicant on a monthly basis for ADHD. The Board considered this contention and determined it does not mitigate the misuse in service. (6) The applicant contends, in effect, to have five classes remaining for undergrad graduation after attempting more than 170 credits. Increased grade point average to a 2.99 (3.06 if the applicant’s summer grades were factored). The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s post service accomplishments do not outweigh the misuse of drugs. 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 of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s ADHD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of wrongfully using Amphetamines. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (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 AR20210005526 1