1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 5 November 2020 b. Date Received: 24 November 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 along with a separation program designator (SPD) code, reentry (RE) code and a narrative reason change. The applicant contends, in effect, an upgrade would help with employment opportunities. The applicant desires to become a correctional/probation officer to prevent others from making the same mistakes the applicant made. The applicant’s application indicates other mental health issues are related to the request. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 15 December 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 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: 13 May 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 November 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant tested positive for THC on 2 September 2015 and 16 October 2015. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 1 December 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 7 December 2015, the applicant waived consideration of the case by an administrative separation board upon being discharged with a characterization no less favorable than a General (Under Honorable Conditions) and on the same date, the separation authority approved the applicant’s conditional waiver. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 April 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 October 2013 / 4 years, 24 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 2 years, 6 months, 27 days 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) Developmental counseling for various acts of misconduct. (2) Electronic Copy of DD 2624, dated 23 September 2015, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 154 during an inspection unit (IU) urinalysis conducted on 2 September 2015. (3) Electronic Copy of DD 2624, dated 5 October 2015, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 28 during an inspection random (IR) urinalysis conducted on 17 September 2015. (4) Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings, 9 October 2015 reflects the applicant’s degenerative arthritis of the spine failed retention standards. The applicant was referred to Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). (5) CID Law Enforcement Report - Initial - Final (C), dated 15 October 2015, investigation determined the applicant committed the offense of wrongful use of controlled substance when applicant consumed marijuana as determined by unit urinalysis inspection. (6) Electronic Copy of DD 2624, dated 9 November 2015, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 41 during an inspection random (IR) urinalysis conducted on 16 October 2015. (7) Memorandum, 25 April 2016, reflects, in part, the separation authority determined the medical condition outlined in the MEB was not a direct or substantial contributing cause the conduct which led to the recommendation for administrative separation. (8) Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), 17 November 2015, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with substance use disorders. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provides a letter from the Department of Veteran Affairs, 11 August 2020, which reflects, in part, the applicant has a combined service- connected evaluation of 100-percent. The nature of the applicant’s disability is not listed. (2) AMHRR Listed: See MSEs as described above in item 4h. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, Letter from VA. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with 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) 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, paragraph 12c, 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-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. 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. 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 along with a RE code, SPD code and a narrative reason change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests the narrative reason for the discharge be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Drug Abuse),” and the separation code is “JKK.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be listed in tables 2-2 or 2-2 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant requests the SPD and RE codes be changed. Separation codes are three- character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations the SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14-12c(2), is “JKK.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the separation code entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other SPD code to be entered under this regulation. 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. The applicant contends, in effect, an upgrade would help with employment opportunities. The applicant desires to become a correctional/probation officer to prevent others from making the same mistakes the applicant made. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant’s application indicates other mental health issues are related to the request. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of a mental health diagnosis. The applicant underwent a MSE on 17 November 2015, which reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with substance use disorders. The applicant provides a letter from the Department of Veteran Affairs, 11 August 2020, which reflects, in part, the applicant has a combined service-connected evaluation of 100-percent. The nature of the applicant’s disability is not listed. 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, Unspecified Depressive Disorder, and Panic Disorder with noted drug use throughout his SUDCC enrollment and reporting his poor behavior was purposeful to be discharged after researching separation options. The applicant is service connected for Anxiety Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Unspecified Depressive Disorder, and Panic Disorder with noted drug use throughout his SUDCC enrollment and reporting his poor behavior was purposeful to be discharged after researching separation options. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s significant drug use in support of discharge is not directly mitigated. Specifically, the applicant was able to voice clear thought processes, choosing to use secondary to motivation for separation. However, it is possible there is an indirect relationship; the applicant could have used the marijuana, the only drug referenced as the basis for separation, to manage depressive/anxiety symptoms. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Mood Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation for wrongful use of THC for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant contends, in effect, an upgrade would help with employment opportunities. The applicant desires to become a correctional/probation officer to prevent others from making the same mistakes the applicant made. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. 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. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Mood Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of wrongful use of THC. The Board also considered the applicant's contention regarding an upgrade would help with employment opportunities and found that totality of the applicant's record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (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 AR20210008232 1