1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 June 2020 b. Date Received: 23 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant suffered from an untreated mental health condition (post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)) while in service. The applicant was discharged for drug abuse which was related to untreated PTSD. The applicant deployed to Iraq in April 2009 and served with the company to the best of the applicant's ability. The applicant's company was tasked with main supply route security, Iraqi police academy training, and key leader engagements. At various points in the deployment, the applicant did every one of these tasks. The day the applicant deployed they lost a member of the company. The applicant was involved in some incidence that resulted in a brain injury, such as gunner turret doors slamming closed on the applicant's head and neck, as well as falls from eight feet in the air and ammunition cans not being properly secured resulting in them falling on the applicant's head during vehicle operations. The multiple bases that the applicant was stationed at were involved in attacks. A friend that was in an artillery unit on one of those bases committed suicide the night that this Soldier and the applicant got into a big argument, and the applicant was blamed for it by the Soldier's other friends the next morning. Even though the applicant only deployed for 9 months and 21 days, the constant explosive attacks, the improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, and the blows to the applicant's head, and the loss of friends took its toll on the applicant's mental health. The applicant did see the in country mental health doctor when the applicant could, but that was not very often, and it did not help because all they did was prescribe medications that did not work or negatively affected the applicant's job performance. During the applicant's deployment the applicant also struggled with the fact that the applicant's husband was planning on divorcing the applicant after the deployment. But through all this, the applicant did the job of a Soldier. At one point, toward the end of the applicant's deployment, the applicant injured a hip. This led to the doctors prescribing the applicant pain killers, which the applicant eventually ended up abusing. Upon redeployment, the applicant was able to find a new home, since the applicant's husband submitted a divorce and took their son back to Arizona. The applicant tried to get back into the routine of being a stateside Soldier. The applicant continued with military police certifications so that the applicant would be able to go on patrols, but the applicant was still suffering from undiagnosed PTSD and was self-treating with prescriptions. In May 2010, the applicant self-admitted into treatment for drug abuse. The applicant was treated at a facility in Denton, TX and this facility helped the applicant overcome chemical dependency while also helping the applicant with PTSD. When the applicant returned from treatment, the applicant learned that that the unit was initiating separation from the Army. The applicant was never seen by a mental health professional during service. After the applicant was discharged from the Army on 13 August 2010, the Veterans Affairs (VA) diagnosed the applicant with PTSD in relation to events during the deployment to Iraq. Since then, the applicant has not used any substances, including alcohol, in an abusive way in the last 10 years. During this time, the applicant has been seen by mental health professionals both at the local VA hospital and at the Prescott Vet Center. The applicant remarried and is a stay at home parent to their four children. The applicant is currently not on any medications and has a 90 percent disability rating. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied self- authored statement provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 7 July 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder fully outweighing the applicant's drug abuse misconduct. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the RE code was 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: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200, Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 12 August 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 July 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 26 April 2010, the applicant tested positive for marijuana, a controlled substance. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 July 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 August 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 August 2007 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31B10, Military Police / 2 years, 11 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (14 April 2009 - 3 February 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 10 May 2010, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 109 (marijuana), during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing, conducted on 26 April 2010. FG Article 15, dated 30 June 2010, for wrongfully using marijuana on or about 26 March 2010 and on or about 26 April 2010. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $723 pay per month for 2 months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days and an oral reprimand. Two developmental counseling forms for a positive urinalysis and notification of separation for misconduct. The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief, dated 8 August 2010, reflects the applicant was flagged for Army Physical Fitness Training failure (JA), effective 3 December 2009, adverse action (AA), effective 4 May 2010, and involuntary separation/field initiated (BA), effective 8 July 2010. The Assignment Eligibility Availability (AEA) code reflects AEA code "L" which has no assignment restrictions. The applicant was reduced from E-4 to E-1 effective 1 July 2010. FLAGS / AEA codes: JA, AA, BA / L Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 20 July 2010, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; and met medical retention requirements. The evaluating psychiatrist states in findings: the applicant's situation seems complicated. Need to discuss the applicant's condition with Behavioral Health and the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) providers. The applicant required a reevaluation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: ASAP Memorandum, Medical Appointment for (Applicant), dated 6 May 2010, requests the applicant's commander to produce temporary duty orders for the applicant to attend the Freedom Care Dual Recovery Program at University Behavioral Health of El Paso/Denton, Denton, TX. Canton-Potsdam Hospital patient discharge instructions, printed 9 May 2010, reflects the applicant was admitted on 3 May 2010 and discharged on 10 May 2010 with a diagnosis of psychoactive substance dependence. Health Record, dated 18 June 2010, reflects the applicant was seen at the U.S. Army Medical Department Activity (USAMEDDAC), Fort Drum, NY after returning from in patient substance abuse in Denton, TX for PTSD and drug abuse. Report of Medical Examination, dated 8 July 2010, the examining medical physician noted in the significant or disqualifying section: Adjustment disorder with anxiety. Summary of defects and diagnosis: PTSD and depression, left hip, and left knee pain. In part, the recommendations were continue seeing behavioral health and follow up with primary care manager or VA. Report of Medical History, dated 8 July 2010, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: report behavioral health since February 2010 for PTSD type symptoms which were being treated at the USAMEDDAC Behavioral Health, and detox treatment on 7 May 2010. VA disability rating decision, date not shown due to applicant provided pages 4 and 5 of these documents, reflects the applicant was initially rated 30 percent disability for PTSD (also claimed as anxiety and depression) and was increased to 70 percent with a combined disability rating of 90 percent effective 27 December 2016. Medical progress notes reflects the applicant continues to be seen for PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: MSE as described in previous paragraph 4h. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; two third-party letters; achievement documents; medical records. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant received an Automotive Technician Certificate, an Automotive Master Technician Certificate, and an Associate Degree of Applied Science in Automotive Technology at Yavapai College, and a certificate of graduation for Service Dog training. The applicant enrolled in the Associate of Occupational Science in Health Information Management and was expected to earn a certificate of completion in Medical Billing and Coding on 9 April 2021 both at Bryan University. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12c(2) terms abuse of illegal drugs as serious misconduct. It continues; however, by recognizing relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct and processed for separation under paragraph 14- 12a or 14-12b as appropriate. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (drug abuse). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-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 contends, in effect, the applicant suffered from untreated PTSD while in service and was discharged for drug abuse which was related to the untreated PTSD. In addition, the applicant contends, in effect, the applicant was never seen by a mental health professional during service. The applicant states in self-authored letter to have been seen by a mental health doctor in country (Iraq) however, not often enough and it did not help because the prescribed medications did not work or effected the applicant's job performance negatively. The applicant provided a Report of Medical Examination, dated 8 July 2010, shows the examining medical physician noted in the significant or disqualifying section: Adjustment disorder with anxiety. Summary of defects and diagnosis: PTSD and depression, left hip, and left knee pain. In part, the recommendations were continue seeing behavioral health and follow up with primary care manager or VA. The applicant also provided a Report of Medical History, dated 8 July 2010, shows the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: report behavioral health since February 2010 for PTSD type symptoms which were being treated at the USAMEDDAC Behavioral Health The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant's actions at the end of service was an isolated incident due not being properly diagnosed or treated for a mental illness. AR 635-200, paragraph 3-5, 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, in effect, after being discharged from the Army, the VA diagnosed the applicant with PTSD in relation to events during the deployment to Iraq. A VA disability rating decision reflects the applicant was initially rated 30 percent disability for PTSD (also claimed as anxiety and depression) and was increased to 70 percent effective 27 December 2016. One of the third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant while in service. The other statements recognize the applicant's accomplishments with addiction recovery after leaving the Army. The applicant contends, in effect, in addition, the applicant was never seen by a mental health professional during service. The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that the applicant ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. 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 diagnoses: The applicant held in- service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder and Anxiety Disorder NOS. Applicant is service connected for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder and Anxiety Disorder NOS with discussion of combat related events. (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 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 outweighed the applicant's drug abuse offense. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant suffered from untreated PTSD while in service and was discharged for drug abuse which was related to the untreated PTSD. The Board liberally considered this contention, and that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the applicant's drug abuse offense. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is warranted. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant's actions at the end of service was an isolated incident due not being properly diagnosed or treated for a mental illness. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to PTSD outweighing the applicant's drug abuse. (3) The applicant contends, in effect, after being discharged from the Army, the VA diagnosed the applicant with PTSD in relation to events during the deployment to Iraq. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to PTSD outweighing the applicant's drug abuse. (4) The applicant contends, in effect, in addition, the applicant was never seen by a mental health professional during service. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on that the applicant's PTSD outweighing the applicant's drug abuse offense. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder fully outweighing the applicant's drug abuse misconduct. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the RE code was 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 outweighing the applicant's misconduct of drug abuse. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (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. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210005789 1