1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 18 November 2020 b. Date Received: 7 December 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 requests an upgrade to an honorable characterization of service and reenlistment code, to enable them to join the Texas Army Guard. (1) The applicant is states they were diagnosed with bipolar and ADHD and took medication briefly, while enrolled in a resident program from age 13-14 years old. At the age 17 years old they were searching for fulfillment and believed the military was the answer to fix themselves. During the separation process, they requested multiple times to undergo a mental health evaluation and to be transferred to another unit; they were under a lot of stress and very young, the ability to make sound decisions had been compromised and all the proper channels for rehabilitation were denied to them. They wished they would have waited a few more years, since they have now overcome their past, desiring to correct their mistakes and reclaim their family’s honor. (2) Had their request to be transferred taken place, they would have had a successful military career. The applicant states they were dealt with harsher than other Soldiers with similar situations. Following their failed urinalysis test, the applicant felt ostracized from their unit and treated as an outsider concluding they were not given much a chance to change or be successful. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 13 October 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 b. Date of Discharge: 22 August 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant’s request for voluntary discharge under provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 July 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 August 2006 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 January 2005 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / GED / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 11B10 Infantryman / 1 year, 3 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) The available evidence does provide on 9 December 2004, at the age of 17 and with parental consent, the applicant enlisted in the Unites States Army Reserve’s Delayed Entry Program; they enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and 16 weeks. (2) A pre-trial checklist provides the applicant was placed in pretrial confinement on 9 August 2005 in which charges were adjudged on 16 December 2005. They were sentenced to 169 days in confinement and forfeiture of $800 pay for 6 months. The sentence was approved and executed on 26 April 2006, crediting the applicant with 129 days served against their sentence. On 26 December 2005, the applicant was released from military confinement. The Charge Sheet and Pre-Trial Confinement Order are missing from the record (3) On 9 January 2006, a military protective order (MPO) was issued for the applicant to have no contact with PV2 [redacted]. The applicant was moved to another barracks as a result. (4) On 30 January 2006, the Alcohol and Drug Control Officer, Fort Lewis, WA, a memorandum provides notification to the command of the positive test results for the latest wrongful use of a controlled substances (MDA/MDMA/METH/THC), in addition to noting two prior UA positives that occurred 8 July 2005 (AMP/MDA/MDMA/METH) and 8 August 2005 (COC). The officer advised the command of steps they needed to take by 23 February 2006 IAW AR 600-85 as follows: (a) United States Army Criminal Investigation Division Command (USACIDC) Report, dated 7 February 2006, provides, in effect, based on allegations/preliminary investigation, the applicant was alleged of wrongful distribution, introduction, w/intent to distribute, and possession of a controlled substance (ecstasy). (b) On 9 January 2006, the applicant was advised of their legal rights, then invoked them and requested to speak with legal counsel. The applicant was advised of their legal rights and elected to waive them and stated they used approximately nine pills of ecstasy between 6 January – 6 February 2006. Approximately 21 tablets of a controlled substance (ecstasy) were found in an authorized search of the applicant’s assigned billets room (5) CID Report of Investigation, 2D Status - 0032-2006-CID016-65987-5L4B / 5L4H / 5L4F / 5L4D2 / 5L2D2, dated 7 February 2006, investigation revealed that applicant committed the offense of wrongful possession and introduction of a controlled substance (ecstasy) with the intent to distribute, when 21 tablets of suspected ecstasy were discovered during a Commander authorized search of the applicant's assigned billets room. (6) A Charge Sheet and Pre-Trial Confinement Order, dated 6 March 2006, provides the applicant was charged with Article 86 (1 March 2006 failed to report to place of duty); Article 89 (5 January 2006 behaved with disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer); Article 90 (5, 10 & 18 January and 2 February 2006 willfully disobeyed lawful orders given); Article 91 (2 February 2006 for willfully disobeyed lawful orders given); and Article 112a (9 January 2006 for wrongful use of methamphetamine); UCMJ, respectively occurring at or near Fort Lewis, WA; the applicant was confined by military authorities the same day. (7) Eight Developmental Counseling Forms, provides the applicant was counseled with eyewitness statements for the following various acts of misconduct between January and March 2006 including: * restriction to post and 3-hour check-ins * disrespect towards their commissioned officer and NCO * smoking cigarettes in the barracks * having paraphernalia in their room * military protection order violations (6) On 7 March 2006, the immediate commander recommended continued pre-trial confinement to the Military Magistrate, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate; beginning 6 March 2006, detailing the specifications, contending there was a substantial possibility the applicant would commit further misconduct, with a significant disruption of good order and discipline. (7) A Waiver of Pre-Trial Confinement (PTC) Review (R.C.M. 305) document, dated 8 March 2006, provides the applicant freely and voluntarily elected to waive their rights to a personal appearance at their pre-trial confinement that took place the same day. (8) Charges were preferred on 13 March 2006. On 14 March 2006, the battalion commander notified the applicant of their intent to pursue judicial punishment for breaking restriction five times between January and March 2006 The charges were referred to a general court-martial on 6 April 2006. (9) A Waiver of Rights Under Article 32(b) document provides on 26 July 2006 a special agent from the USACIDC, provides the applicant waived their rights, freely and voluntarily without forced coercion. The applicant stated after fully consulting with counsel, they believe it would be in their best interest to do so. (10) On 26 July 2006, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. In their request, they affirmed no one had subjected them to coercion, and counsel had advised them of the implications of their request. The applicant further acknowledged they were guilty of the charge against them or a lessor one electing to submit a statement on their behalf, however, the AMHRR is void of the statement. (a) On 26 July 2006, a memorandum provides the defense counsel endorsed the applicant’s voluntary request for discharge acknowledging they were counseled on the possible effects of an under other than honorable discharge. (b) On 4 August 2006, a memorandum provides the appropriate approval authority approved separation and directed the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions and reduction to the lowest enlisted rank. On (11) On 22 August 2006, the applicant was discharged accordingly. A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty) reflects the applicant completed 9 months and 19 days of net active service. The applicant has not completed their first full term of service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Total time lost 295 days / Confined by Military Authority (CMA) * 129 days, (PTC, 9 August -15 December 2005) * 11 days, (Confinement, 16 – 26 December 2005) * 155 days, (PTC, 6 March 2006 – 8 August 2006) j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant states they were diagnosed with bipolar and ADHD and submitted documents from the Boys & Girls Country, Hockley, Texas, dated 20 February 2001, provides at the age of 12 years old, the grandparents were legal guardians, receiving temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) and Medicaid at the time they enrolled the applicant into the resident program from 20 February – 19 October 2001 for school issues that included fighting, disrespect, uncooperative, unmotivated, and irresponsible. Two pages of this document are medication/prescription logs for “Risperdal” from 24 July – 20 August 2001. Additionally, it shows the biological mother discharged the applicant from the program and chose not to commit the applicant to the program for another year. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), Self-Authored Statement (email) dated 28 September 2023, Application Package and Placement Agreement for Boys and Girls Country, Prescription Drug Log from Boys and Girls Country, and a letter from their stepfather, it states: a. On 21 September 2023, provides a letter from the applicant’s stepfather, a veteran who honorably served the United States Army for seven years, achieving the rank of SGT, requests an upgrade due to the applicant’s lack of maturity who suffered from behavior issues, stating that the applicant was a smart young man but always seemed to be bucking the system and authority figures in general. The stepfather explains the applicant’s biological father had been absent since age 7 and their relationship began strained at age 15. Moreover, they wished they would have delayed the enlistment and encouraged the applicant to graduate high school, and then enlist, perhaps this would have allowed for the applicant to develop greater maturity. b. Additionally, the stepfather has seen the transformation to the individual they see and know today who works diligently, respects others and themselves, loyal to their friends and family, and offers help to others. The stepfather states the applicant has grown, both personally and professionally, became a parent in 2013, currently attends school full-time earning their associates degree in Business Administration Management, in addition to the applicant’s full- time job and support of themselves and their family. Concluding they would serve with their stepchild and is proud to call the applicant their child. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has overcome their past, became a parent, received their education, and secured a great position within their company. 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) 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. (2) 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. (3) An 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. (4) Chapter 10, Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court Martial is applicable to members who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. The request could be submitted at any time after the charges had been preferred. Although an honorable or general was authorized, an under other than honorable conditions discharge was considered appropriate, unless the record was so meritorious it would warrant an honorable. (a) After receiving legal counseling, the soldier may elect to submit a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The soldier will sign a written request, certifying that they have been counseled, understands their rights, and may receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions. (b) The following will accompany the request for discharge: * A copy of the court-martial Charge Sheet (DD Form 458) * Report of medical examination and mental status evaluation, if conducted * A complete copy of all reports of investigation * Any statement, documents, or other matter considered by the commanding officer in making their recommendation, including any information presented for consideration by the soldier or consulting counsel * A statement of any reasonable ground for belief that the soldier is, or was at the time of misconduct, mentally defective, deranged, or abnormal. When appropriate, evaluation by a psychiatrist will be included. (5) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army’s best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary’s approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “KFS” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. 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. g. Army Regulation 600-85 (Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP)) dated 28?December 2012, provided a comprehensive alcohol and drug abuse prevention and control policies, procedures, and responsibilities for Soldiers for ASAP services. The ASAP is a command program that emphasizes readiness and personal responsibility. The ultimate decision regarding separation or retention of abusers is the responsibility of the Soldier’s chain of command. Abuse of alcohol or the use of illicit drugs by military personnel is inconsistent with Army values and the standards of performance, discipline, and readiness necessary to accomplish the Army’s mission. (1) Unit commanders must intervene early and refer all Soldiers suspected or identified as alcohol and/or drug abusers to the ASAP. The unit commander should recommend enrollment based on the Soldier’s potential for continued military service in terms of professional skills, behavior, and potential for advancement. (2) ASAP participation is mandatory for all Soldiers who are command referred. Failure to attend a mandatory counseling session may constitute a violation of Article?86 (Absence Without Leave) of the UCMJ. (3) Alcohol and/or other drug abusers, and in some cases dependent alcohol users, may be enrolled in the ASAP when such enrollment is clinically recommended. Soldiers who fail to participate adequately in, or to respond successfully to, rehabilitation will be processed for administrative separation and not be provided another opportunity for rehabilitation except under the most extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the Clinical Director in consultation with the unit commander. (4) All Soldiers who are identified as drug abusers, without exception, will be referred to the ASAP counseling center for screening; be considered for disciplinary action under the UCMJ, as appropriate; and be processed for administrative separation in accordance with Army Regulation?635-200. h. Manual for Courts-Martial (2005 Edition), United States, states military law consists of the statutes governing the military establishment and regulations issued thereunder, the constitutional powers of the President and regulations issued thereunder, and the inherent authority of military commanders. Military law includes jurisdiction exercised by courts-martial and the jurisdiction exercised by commanders with respect to nonjudicial punishment. The purpose of military law is to promote justice, to assist in maintaining good orders and discipline in the Armed Forces. (1) Article 86 (absence without leave) states in subparagraph being absence without leave for more than 3 days but not more than 30 days, the maximum punishment consists of confinement for 6 months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 6 months. (2) Article 89 (disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer) states in subparagraph disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer, the maximum punishment consists of a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year. (3) Article 90 (willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer) states in subparagraph the maximum punishment consists of a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 10 years. (4) Article 91 (willfully disobeying a noncommissioned officer) states in subparagraph the maximum punishment consists of bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year. (5) Article 112a (wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances) states in subparagraph the maximum punishment consists of dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement for 5 years. (6) Article 134 (wrongfully communicating a threat to a noncommissioned officer) states in subparagraph the maximum punishment consists of confinement for 3 months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. a. The applicant requests an upgrade to a general (under honorable conditions). A review of the record provides there was administrative irregularity in the proper retention of official military records, specifically, the referral to ASAP, a two-part mandatory clinical assessment, required within 4 days of the first positive urinalysis (1 July 2005), a Charge Sheet for the summary court-martial (SCM) order, adjudged on 16 December 2005, and the confinement order for the applicant’s first confinement period (9 August -15 December 2005). However, based on the available evidence: (1) The applicant enlisted with parental consent at the age of 17 years old. They completed IADT as a 11B10 Infantryman and served without indiscipline for over 5 months. It appears they were confined in 2005 for 169 days; however, the record is void of documents with specific facts and circumstances. (2) On 6 March 2006 the applicant was charged with violating Articles 86 for failing to report to place of duty [restriction], Article 89 for disrespect to a commissioned officer, Article 90 for four specifications of failure to obey a lawful order from an officer [violated issued protective order], Article 91 for failure to obey a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer, and Article 112 for wrongful use of methamphetamine [an excessive amount of ecstasy]. Based on the risk associated to the demonstrated indiscipline the commander recommended pre-trial confinement; the applicant freely and voluntarily elected to waive their rights to a personal appearance at the hearing, in doing so, they acknowledged the magistrate would be allowed to consider continuing confinement without the applicant or government placing any additional information before the reviewing officer. (3) A special court-martial convened and found guilty of violating Articles 86, 91, 112, and one charge of Article 134, with the second charge for violating Article 134 being dismissed. The sentence was approved and executed sentencing the applicant to 169 days in confinement and forfeiture of $800 pay per month for six months. The applicant was credited with 129 days already served. (1) On 26 July 2006, after having consulted with counsel the applicant, of their own free will, voluntarily requested to be discharged in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. In doing so, they would have waived the opportunity to appear before a court-martial and risk a felony conviction. They received a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions, which is authorized and normally considered appropriate. (2) A mental examination is required within 4 days of ASAP’s notification to the command for the first wrongful use, due to the lack of evidence we are unable to determine if the applicant attended the required ASAP screening. A medical and mental examination was not required for the voluntary discharge ILO trial by court-martial but could have been requested by the service member. b. Army Regulation 635-200 states a Chapter 10 is a voluntary discharge request in-lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record during the current enlistment. For Soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier’s record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. c. Published DoD guidance indicates the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board’s statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant’s petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. KURTA FACTORS. 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 applicant asserts EPTS Bipolar DO and ADHD which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant self-asserted that his EPTS Bipolar DO and ADHD affected his military service. Military medical documentation contains no BH diagnoses or BH notes. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there are no mitigating BH conditions. While the applicant contends that he suffered from Bipolar DO and ADHD as a child, neither of these conditions is mitigated under liberal consideration as both conditions occurred prior to the applicant entering the Army and there is no probative evidence indicating that the applicant’s preexisting conditions were permanently worsened or aggravated as a result of military service any more than they would have been in the absence of military service. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB determined that the condition or experience did not outweigh the basis of separation. b. Prior Decisions Cited: AR20110012201 was cited in the stepfather’s letter. c. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends they were young, in effect, they were diagnosed with bipolar and ADHD and took medication briefly, while enrolled in a Boys and Girls resident program. A review of the evidence submitted on behalf of the applicant does not provide a diagnosis from that time frame; however, it does provide a prescription log that shows the applicant was administered Risperdal for a period of time. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of bipolar and ADHD; however, the Board determined the applicant’s asserted bipolar and ADHD did not outweigh the applicant’s voluntary discharge under provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (2) The applicant contends they requested to be transferred out of the unit, as well as receive a mental health/medical examination; however, the record the AMHRR is void of documents that show any of these actions were requested during the court-martial proceedings or at the time they voluntarily requested to be discharged. However, the statement they elected to submit on their behalf is not provided in the AMHRR. The Board considered this contention and 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. (4) In regard to the applicant contending their ability to make sound decisions was compromised, all proper channels for rehabilitation were denied to them, had their request to be transferred taken place, they would have had a successful military career, and they were dealt with harsher than other Soldiers with similar situations. Following their failed urinalysis test, the applicant felt ostracized from their unit and treated as an outsider concluding they were not given much a chance to change or be successful. The Board considered this contention and determined that there is insufficient evidence in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant that the applicant was not provided sufficient access to BH resources. Therefore, no change is warranted. (a) Based on the available evidence the applicant received counsel throughout the administrative process of their court-martial and separation proceedings. Regarding rehabilitative efforts, the applicant was counseled a multitude of times regarding their indiscipline. (b) The applicant states the Board is unable to address what occurred at the time the applicant underwent separation proceedings; however, based on the available evidence the applicant willingly and voluntarily requested to be discharged In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial based on preferred charges that may have resulted in a punitive discharge, confinement, and forfeiture of pay. d. The Board determined that the discharge is at this time, proper and equitable, considering the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contentions that the discharge was improper or inequitable. e. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service for the following reasons: the Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical review, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, record of service, the frequency and nature of misconduct, and the reason for separation. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official that the applicant does not have a BH condition that mitigates the applicant's misconduct (wrongful possession and introduction of a controlled substance (ecstasy) with the intent to distribute; failed to report to place of duty; disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer; willfully disobeying lawful orders given; wrongful use of methamphetamine). Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the reason for the applicant's separation and the character of service the applicant received upon separation were proper and equitable (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, 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 / 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 AR20210006725 1