1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 September 2020 b. Date Received: 7 October 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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. The Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28, which stipulates a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant's mental capacity began to decrease due to on-going martial and financial issues. The applicant expressed the issues with leadership, but they possessed no regard for the applicant's issues. The issues became more detrimental and began to affect the applicant's work performance and it was recommended the applicant engage with Behavioral Health (BH) for assistance. At this point the applicant was severely engaged with substance abuse usage and did not believe BH could truly be of assistance. Despite the negative affect substance abuse had the applicant's career, it was the only medium which prevented the applicant from committing suicide. After the positive urinalysis the applicant felt isolated from the unit which compelled the applicant to seek substance abuse usage even more and flow thru with the suicidal ideation. The applicant believes had the leadership helped, the applicant would not have resorted to substance usage. An upgrade would compensate for the lack of leadership within the unit. The discharge has caused the applicant much difficulty with obtaining employment and receiving veteran benefits. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 3 November 2023, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's behavioral health diagnosis mitigating the drug abuse misconduct. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board found the narrative reason, SPD code and reentry code were proper and equitable based on the misconduct and behavioral health diagnosis respectively and voted not to change them. 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 30 January 2020 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 April 2017 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 89B10, Ammunition Specialist / 2 years, 9 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 19 August 2019, for wrongfully using Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on or about 19 March 2019 and on or about 18 April 2019. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $840.00 pay per month for 2 months, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 15 February 2020, and extra duty for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provides a Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 14 September 2020, which reflects the applicant was granted, in part, service connection for treatment purposes only for major depression with anxious distress. The applicant also provides in-service medical records indicating a major depressive disorder diagnosis. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, personal statement, medical documents, VA Rating Decision, dated 14 September 2020, COA, DA Form 2627, Enlistment documents 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) 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) 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. 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 did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. The Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28, which stipulates a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's service AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. The applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14- 12c(2), by reason of Misconduct (Drug Abuse), with a characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The applicant contends in effect, the applicant's mental capacity began to decrease due to on- going martial and financial issues. The applicant expressed the issues with leadership, but they possessed no regard for the applicant's issues. The applicant AMHRR is void of a mental health diagnosis. The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision,14 September 2020, which reflects the applicant was granted, in part, service connection for treatment purposes only for major depression with anxious distress. The applicant also provides in-service medical records indicating a major depressive disorder diagnosis. The applicant contends had the leadership helped, the applicant would not have resorted to substance usage. An upgrade would compensate for the lack of leadership within the unit. Based on the applicant's statement, it appears the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by referring the applicant to behavioral health. The applicant states the discharge has caused the applicant much difficulty with obtaining employment and receiving veteran benefits. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities and eligibility for veteran's benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it is the applicant's responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. 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/experiences: Major Depressive Disorder (note-diagnosis of Other Depressive Episodes is subsumed under MDD diagnosis). VA: MDD with anxious distress. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the diagnosis of MDD was made while applicant was on active duty. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has a mitigating BH condition, Major Depressive Disorder with anxious features (note-diagnosis of Unspecified Anxiety DO is subsumed under the MDD diagnosis). As there is an association between MDD and use of illicit drugs/alcohol to self-medicate symptoms, there is a nexus between the applicant's diagnosis of MDD and his multiple instances to testing positive for THC on UA. (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 MDD outweighed the listed basis for separation for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends in effect, the applicant's mental capacity began to decrease due to on-going martial and financial issues. The applicant expressed the issues with leadership, but they possessed no regard for the applicant's issues. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's MDD mitigated the drug abuse misconduct and voted to grant relief. (2) The applicant contends had the leadership helped, the applicant would not have resorted to substance usage. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's MDD mitigated the drug abuse misconduct and voted to grant relief. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's behavioral health diagnosis mitigating the drug abuse misconduct. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board found the narrative reason, SPD code and reentry code were proper and equitable based on the misconduct and behavioral health diagnosis respectively and voted not to change them. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's Major Depressive Disorder mitigated the applicant's drug abuse misconduct. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code, as 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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20210006020 1