1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 29 July 2020 b. Date Received: 5 August 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant's Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, in 2014, the applicant was present for an active shooting in Fort Hood. The applicant happened to be walking near the building where the shooting began and ran for the applicant's life. The applicant immediately sheltered at the applicant's company nearby. The applicant and a few other individuals spent the rest of the day at the company until they were escorted by the military police to a nearby gym. The applicant and the others passed through the area where the shooter committed suicide and where the shooter had killed or injured others. Shortly after this incident, the applicant began dealing with serious mental health issues, such as intense anxiety and suicidal thoughts. The applicant began heavily drinking to cope with the struggles and when the drinking did not work, the applicant sought out professional help from a therapist. Unfortunately, the professionals did not seem to care or provide the applicant with any guidance. The applicant began to heavily drink again and began abusing a synthetic drug known as "spice," eventually being caught abusing the drug. The applicant was discharged from the military after being arrested, being forced into a mental facility, being stripped of the applicant's rank, having pay cut in half, and performing extra duty until nearly the day the applicant separated. The applicant was not given the opportunity to prove oneself. The applicant had leaders who stated this was an isolated incident and the incident did not reflect who the applicant was as a person or a Soldier. The applicant indicated post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is related to the request. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 26 July 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and Dysthymic Disorder mitigated the applicant's misconduct - drug abuse. Also, post-service the applicant is service connected for PTSD. 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. 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, Paragraph14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions). b. Date of Discharge: 13 June 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 April 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 April 2013 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 3 years, 1 month, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 14 June 2016, reflects the applicant was flagged for Involuntary Separation or Discharge (Field Initiated) (BA), effective 22 March 2016; was ineligible for reenlistment because of Pending Separation (9V). The applicant was reduced from E-4 to E-1, effective 11 February 2016. Orders 159-0162, dated 7 June 2016, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 13 June 2016, from the Regular Army. The applicant's DD Form 214 reflects the applicant did not complete the first full term of service. The applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c (2), with a narrative reason of Misconduct (Drug Abuse). The DD Form 214 was authenticated with the applicant's electronic signature. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; third party character reference; The New York Times article, "How the Fort Hood Shooting Unfolded." The applicant indicated the medical records were attached to the application; however, there were no medical records submitted with the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Based on a third-party character reference, the applicant has maintained employment; is attending college and consistently attending church; and is married and a proud parent to two children. 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's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR) is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant's AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's electronic signature. The applicant's DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c (2), by reason of Misconduct (Drug Abuse), with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant admitted in the application to heavy drinking; being caught using spice, an illegal drug; and being arrested. Based on the AMHRR, someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, "AR 635-200, PARA 14-12C (2)." The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge because of a Commission of a Serious Offense. Soldiers discharged because of a Commission of a Serious Offense, will be processed under the provisions AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c. Based on the AMHRR, someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation as "Misconduct (Drug Abuse)." The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c. Soldiers processed for misconduct under these provisions will be assigned a Narrative Reason for Separation as Misconduct (Serious Offense). The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior, which ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of a PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends seeking professional assistance, but it did not improve the applicant's mental health issues. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the mental health issues. Army Regulation 600-85, paragraph 7-3 entitled voluntary (self) identification and referral, states voluntary (self) ID is the most desirable method of identifying substance use disorder. The individual whose performance, social conduct, interpersonal relations, or health becomes impaired because of these problems has the personal obligation to seek help. Soldiers seeking self-referral for problematic substance use may access services through BH services for a SUD evaluation. The Limited Use Policy exists to encourage Soldiers to proactively seek help. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends good service. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends maintaining employment; attending college and consistently attending church; and being married and a proud parent of two children. 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 statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. It recognizes the applicant's 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 diagnoses: The applicant was diagnosed in-service with an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and Dysthymic Disorder. Post-service, the applicant is service connected for PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed in-service with an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and Dysthymic Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that irrespective of the lack of trauma symptoms in-service or service-connected date supporting trauma symptoms existed in-service, liberal consideration compels a change given the service connected condition and nexus between trauma and substance use. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the applicant's Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Dysthymic Disorder & Post-service for PTSD outweighed the drug abuse basis of separation for the aforementioned reason. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior, which ultimately led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings and determined that the applicant's contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to the applicant's Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Dysthymic Disorder & Post-service for PTSD mitigated the applicant's misconduct - drug abuse. (2) The applicant contends seeking professional assistance, but it did not improve the applicant's mental health issues. The Board considered this contention during proceedings but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted as detailed in paragraphs 9a (1) and 9b (1). (3) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The board considered this contention and decided that based on Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5c in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted as detailed in paragraphs 9a (1) and 9b (1). (4) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered this contention during proceedings but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted as detailed in paragraphs 9a (1) and 9b (1). (5) The applicant contends maintaining employment; attending college and consistently attending church; and being married and a proud parent of two children. The Board considered this contention during proceedings along with applicant's post-service factors, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted as detailed in paragraphs 9a (1) and 9b (1). c. The Board determined that the discharge was inequitable based on the applicant's diagnosis of in service Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Dysthymic Disorder, and service connected PTSD (VA established PTSD occurred during military) mitigated the applicant's misconduct - drug abuse. 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. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant in service Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Dysthymic Disorder, and service connected PTSD mitigated the applicant's 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 / Separation Order: 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 AR20210007238 1