1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 3 March 2020 b. Date Received: 23 June 2020 c. Counsel: 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, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, deploying to Afghanistan and returning with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The applicant, as a national guard Soldier, received most of the reintegration support from civilian friends. Those relationships led the applicant using opioids to cope with severe PTSD. The applicant was well regarded by the unit and initially given a chance to return if the applicant could kick the opioids before the next drill. The applicant was unable to do so and was discharged as a result. The applicant was since given a 100 percent disability rating for the disability. The applicant attended treatment, kicked opioids, and worked through college and now as a firefighter. Since the applicant has beaten the condition which resulted in the discharge, the applicant respectfully requests an upgrade. The applicant was an exemplary Soldier, who served on active duty, and was inequitably discharged while self-medicating because of untreated PTSD. If this had not occurred, the applicant would likely have completed the service honorably. The ways in which the applicant's post-deployment behavior deviated from what is expected of a Soldier can only be explained by the untreated PTSD the applicant was suffering from and the lack of reintegration opportunities available to the applicant as a National Guard Soldier. When presented by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with the resources the applicant needed to redeem oneself, the applicant did so quickly and gladly. AR 635-200 and other regulations generally provides training and redemption opportunities are preferable to discharge, particularly for Soldiers recently returned from combat. The applicant's meritorious combat service greatly outweighs the mistakes the applicant made in mid-2013, as do the applicant's post-service achievements and decision to pursue volunteer work caring for fellow veterans and scholastic achievements to remain in a law enforcement role. The discharge was inequitable if "it is determined that the policies and procedures under which the applicant was discharged differ in material respects from policies and procedures currently applicable, or "it is determined that relief is warranted based upon consideration of the applicant's service record and other evidence presented to the ADRB viewed in conjunction with the factors listed in AR 15-180." If not inequitable, the characterization of the applicant as a "rehabilitation failure" was improper, since it failed to consider the then-recently revised standards in AR 600-85, paragraph 10-6, which focuses on rehabilitation, as the preferred response to alcohol or drug abuse. The applicant's untreated and undertreated PTSD, meritorious combat service, and rehabilitation efforts mitigate the applicant's misconduct. The applicant's meritorious combat service and post-service outweigh any misconduct and merit an honorable discharge. The applicant's petition deserves liberal consideration in light of the PTSD and TBI the applicant suffered at the time of the applicant's discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 9 June 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's substance abuse basis of 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 135-178, paragraph 11-1a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Disciplinary Infractions). The Board determined the reentry code is proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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 or Other Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Failure / NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-35h / NA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 15 January 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 September 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed under the provisions NGR 600- 200, Chapter 6, paragraph 6-32, and AR 135-178, Chapter 12, for the following reason: Misconduct - Positive Urinalysis, fourth positive on 18 June 2013. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 3 September 2013, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 January 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 January 2009 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / GED / 105 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 12B10, Combat Engineer / 4 years, 11 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 27 January 2009 - 26 January 2013 / NA IADT, 10 March 2009 - 26 June 2009 / HD (Concurrent Service) AD, 25 November 2011 - 3 January 2013 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan-Kyrgyzstan (9 January 2012 - 14 November 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, AFRM-MD, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 25 March 2010, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 34 (marijuana), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing. The date the urinalysis test was conducted is stricken out. Department of Defense Testing Results Portal printout, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 34 (marijuana), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 7 March 2010 and reported on 25 March 2010. Commander's Report (previous separation proceedings), dated 10 January 2010, reflects the commander recommended retention because the applicant voluntarily sought counseling at own expense, was remorseful, and deserving of a second chance. The applicant took the necessary steps with the assistance of the of the chain of command to seek rehabilitation and counseling. Memorandum, subject: Administrative Separation Results for [Applicant] (previous separation proceedings), dated 9 March 2011, reflects the applicant was retained by the separation authority in the Massachusetts Army National Guard. Orders 203-107, dated 22 July 2011, reflects the applicant was transferred from Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 26th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade (Rear), Reading, Massachusetts to Combat Engineer 182nd Engineer Company, Newburyport, Massachusetts, effective 20 July 2011 because of the applicant's request. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 29 May 2013, reflects the applicant tested positive for HYMOR 193 (hydromorphone) and MOR 9501 (morphine), during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing, conducted on 18 May 2013. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 29 May 2013, reflects the applicant tested positive for HYMOR 2744 (hydromorphone) and MOR 46775 (morphine), > LOL, during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing, conducted on 19 May 2013. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 2 July 2013, reflects the applicant tested positive for 6AM (Heroin), 20 HYMOR 432 (hydromorphone), and MOR 85901(morphine), > LOL, during an Inspection Other (IO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 18 June 2013. Commander's Report, dated 3 September 2013, reflects the commander recommended discharge under the provisions AR 135-178, chapter 12-1c. Orders 205-052, dated 4 July 2013, reflects the applicant was reduced from E-4 to E-3 for misconduct, effective 18 May 2013. Army National Guard Bar to Reenlistment, dated 3 September 2013, reflects the applicant was recommended to be barred from reenlistment because of positive drug and alcohol results (fourth offense). Orders 013-027, dated 13 January 2014, reflects the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard and as a reserve of the Army under the provisions of NGR 600-200 Para 6-35H, effective 15 January 2014, for Alcohol or Other Drug Abuse with a General discharge. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, dated 21 May 2010 and 3 September 2013, for having positive urinalyses results; being ordered to seek counseling and complete an Army approved treatment program, and pending separation. Joint Headquarters Massachusetts National Guard, Office of the Adjutant General letter, dated 10 September 2019, reflects the applicant requested an upgrade through the Army National Guard and the request for relief was denied. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Boston Healthcare System letter, dated 1 December 2017, reflecting the applicant initially presented to the campus for help in 2013. The applicant had engaged in treatment for symptoms of PTSD, opioid use disorder, and stimulant use disorder. The applicant successfully completed the REACH domiciliary program in July 2015 and the six-week Center for Integrated Residential Care for Addictions (CIRCA) program in March 2016. Per the recent self-report on 27 November 2017, the applicant's symptoms, at the time, were not meeting the criteria for the diagnosis of PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Legal Brief; Supplemental Legal Brief; nine third-party character references; various certification documents; college transcripts and other academic documents; VA Boston Healthcare System letter; and Joint Headquarters Massachusetts National Guard, Office of the Adjutant General letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant volunteered at local treatment facilities; obtained various certifications; continued a career in protection and enforcement; furthered the education, to include being on the Dean's List and a member of the honor society; and moved to Arizona to help combat forest fires. 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 135-178 prescribes the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. (1) Paragraph 2-9a prescribes an honorable characterization 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. (2) Paragraph 2-9b, prescribes, if a Soldier's service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as general (under honorable conditions). Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of the Soldier's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the Soldier's military record. (3) Chapter 10 (previously Chapter 11), in affect at the time, provides in pertinent part, initiation of discharge proceedings is required in the case of a Soldier who has been referred to a program of rehabilitation for personal substance abuse under the provisions of AR 600-85 and who fails through inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete the program in the following circumstances: (1) There is a lack of potential for continued military service; (2) Long-term rehabilitation in a civilian medical facility is determined necessary; and, (3) Rehabilitation failure includes Soldiers with a subsequent alcohol or drug-related incident of misconduct at any time during the 12-month period following successful completion of the Army Substance Abuse Program or during the 1-month period following removal from the program. A Soldier may be discharged when the commander, in consultation with an Army Substance Abuse Program official (AR 600-85), determines that further rehabilitation efforts are not practical, rendering the Soldier a rehabilitation failure, and discharge is in the best interest of the Army. Nothing in this chapter precludes discharge of a Soldier who has been referred to such a program under any other provision of this regulation in appropriate cases. (4) Paragraph 10-2, Characterization of service when a Soldier is discharged under this chapter, characterization of service as honorable or general (under honorable conditions) is authorized except when service is uncharacterized for Soldiers in entry level status. e. National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, establishes standards, policies, and procedures for the management of the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) enlisted Soldiers in the functional areas of: Classification and Reclassification; Personnel Management; Assignment and Transfer, including interstate transfer; Special Duty Assignment Pay; Enlisted Separations; and Command Sergeant Major Program. (1) Chapter 6 sets the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted Soldiers from the ARNG/ARNGUS. (2) Paragraph 6-25, prescribes the discharge of Soldiers on active duty, (Title 10, USC) in AGR, IET, ADT, and ADOS status, as well as those ordered to active duty for contingency operations or under mobilization conditions, is governed by AR 635-200. All Outside Continental United States (OCONUS) training, including AT is conducted in Title 10 ADT status. Refer to AR 135-178 when considering enlisted Soldiers not on active duty and those on full-time National Guard duty (FTNGD) under Title 32 USC for discharge from the ARNG and as a Reserve of the Army. (3) Paragraph 6-35h defers to AR 135-178, chapter 10 (previously chapter 11) and AR 600-85, for discharge for alcohol or other substance abuse rehabilitation failure. Soldiers must request that treatment personnel provide monthly updates in writing to unit commanders, documenting satisfactory participation in a rehabilitation program. This requirement will continue until a closing document of successful completion is provided. Initiation of discharge proceedings is required for Soldiers who have been referred to a program of rehabilitation within 90 days of notification. Administrative separation board procedures per paragraph 6-32 are required. RE 3. 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. Based on the AMHRR, someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's NGB Form 22, block 23, "NGR 600-200, 6-35h, Alcohol or other substance abuse rehabilitation failure." The discharge packet confirms the applicant's immediate commander recommended separation under the provisions of AR 135-178, Paragraph 12-1c, in effect at the time, for Misconduct - Commission of a Serious Offense. NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-35i states to refer to AR 135-178, Chapter 12 for the following reasons under NGR 600-200: Paragraph 6- 35i (1), Acts or patterns of misconduct under the UCMJ, State Military Code or similar laws. This includes abuse of illegal drugs to include testing positive. Based on the applicant's AMHRR, the separation authority approved the immediate commander's recommendation. In accordance with NGR 600-200, the reason for separation should read NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-35i (1), Acts or patterns of misconduct under the UCMJ, State Military Code or similar laws. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 6-35h, NGR 600-200, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by NGR 600-200, for a discharge under this paragraph is "Alcohol or other substance abuse rehabilitation failure." Governing regulations stipulate no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The regulation stipulates a RE-3 will be assigned. The applicant contends untreated PTSD and TBI affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge and being rated 100 percent for disability. The applicant provided letter from a clinical psychologist reflecting the applicant was treated for symptoms of PTSD, opioid use disorder, and stimulant use disorder. Per the applicant's self-report on 21 November 2017, the applicant's symptoms, at the time, were not meeting the criteria for the diagnosis of PTSD. The applicant did not provide any evidence other than the applicant's statement of receiving a 100 percent disability rating. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends training, rehabilitation, and redemption opportunities are preferable responses to alcohol and drug abuse. The applicant admits being enrolled into a three-week rehabilitation treatment program instead of the six-week program. The applicant's AMHRR reflects the applicant was retained in previous separation proceedings because the applicant was remorseful and deserving of a second chance, and took the necessary steps, with the assistance of the chain of command, to seek rehabilitation and counseling. The applicant was transferred to another unit at the applicant's request. The applicant's 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, outweighs the applicant's misconduct. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends volunteering at local treatment facilities; obtaining various certifications; continuing a career in protection and enforcement; advancing in education, to include being on the Dean's List and a member of the honor society; and moving to Arizona to help combat forest fires. 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 third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good military service and/or good conduct after leaving the 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: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant asserts PTSD in-service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between trauma and substance use, the basis for separation is mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD fully outweighed the applicant's substance abuse misconduct. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends untreated PTSD and TBI affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention and Board determined that the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder fully outweighed the applicant's substance abuse misconduct. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is warranted. (2) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's substance abuse basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour, outweighs the applicant's misconduct. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's substance abuse basis for separation. (4) The applicant contends volunteering at local treatment facilities; obtaining various certifications; continuing a career in protection and enforcement; advancing in education, to include being on the Dean's List and a member of the honor society; and moving to Arizona to help combat forest fires. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's substance abuse basis for separation. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's substance abuse basis of 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 135-178, paragraph 11-1a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Disciplinary Infractions). The Board determined the reentry code is proper and equitable and voted not to change it. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighed the applicant's substance abuse misconduct. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. This recommendation was forwarded to the NGB for approval. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. This recommendation was forwarded to the NGB for approval. (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 NGB-22: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Disciplinary Infractions) d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 135-178, 11-1a 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 AR20210005645 1