1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 15 March 2021 b. Date Received: 25 March 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant’s first unit caused stress and mental exhaustion and the applicant turned to alcohol to cope. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 31 March 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: 24 November 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 November 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant used cocaine and methamphetamine between on or about 7 September 2015 and 5 October 2015. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 November 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 November 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 December 2014 / 4 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / High School Graduate / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-1 / 11B1P, Infantryman / 10 months, 25 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: DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag), dated 4 October 2015, reflects the applicant was flagged for drug abuse adverse action effective 4 October 2015. DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated 5 October 2015, reflects remarks by a private first class (PFC) the applicant was driving with. The applicant was drinking excessive amounts of beer and asked the PFC to exit the highway to go purchase meth and cocaine. DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated 5 October 2015, reflects the applicant purchased and consumed cocaine cut with methamphetamine. The applicant understood the Army had a zero tolerance policy for illegal substances. Memorandum for Record, dated 5 October 2015, the company commander determined that probable cause existed to believe that the applicant, wrongfully used illegal narcotics, which is in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice. This determination was based on the sworn statement from a PFC stating the applicant intended to purchase methamphetamine and/or cocaine on the weekend of 3-4 October 2015. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 5 October 2015, reflects the applicant was counseled for alleged drug use, alleged driving under the influence, and a urinalysis being conducted. The applicant violated the WA open container law. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 20 October 2015, reflects the applicant tested positive for COC 10494 (cocaine) and DMETH 15675 (D-Methamphetamine), during a Probable Cause (PO) urinalysis testing conducted on 5 October 2015. DA Form 268, dated 2 November 2015, reflects the applicant was flagged for drug abuse adverse action effective 5 October 2015. DA Form 268, dated 2 November 2015, reflects the applicant was flagged for involuntary separation/discharge field initiated effective 2 November 2015. FG Article 15, dated 5 November 2015, for wrongfully using methamphetamine and/or cocaine between on or about 7 September and 5 October 2015. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $867.00 pay per month for 2 months; $433.50 pay (suspended) to be automatically remitted if not vacated for 45 days; extra duty and restriction for 45 days; and oral reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 12 November 2015, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. 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 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant works for an Aerospace Manufacturing Facility and leads personnel on their aluminum project. The applicant is in an Advanced Manufacturing Program at Danville Area Community College, working towards an associate degree in Applied Science. The applicant has completed four of six semesters, and achieved all As, a 4.0 grade point average, and is on the President’s list. The applicant has had a significant other for 2 years and currently looking for a house. The applicant has been clean from drugs and has successfully quit tobacco for 2 years. 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 PTSD, 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, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the special trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career that ultimately caused the applicant’s discharge from the Army. The applicant contends, in effect, the unit caused stress and mental exhaustion and the applicant turned to alcohol to cope. The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, and there is no evidence in the AMHRR that the applicant ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 12 November 2015, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis, however it states the applicant was currently engaged in the Army Substance Abuse Program services. The applicant contends, in effect since the discharge he has been working for an Aerospace Manufacturing Facility. Lead man on their aluminum project and am currently attending college. The applicant is working towards an associate degree in Applied Science and is currently in Danville Area Community College's Advanced Manufacturing Program. The applicant made the Presidents list with straight A's/ 4.0. and completed four of six semesters. The applicant has a beautiful significant other who he has been with for two years and is also soon to complete college as a medical coder. We are currently looking at houses in attempt to purchase our first home. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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. It was noted the applicant submitted three supporting documents that were inserted into block 14 of the DD Form 293, however, the documents are illegible. 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? No. 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 was not diagnosed with any potentially mitigating conditions by either the Army or the VA. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? N/A (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, the unit caused stress and mental exhaustion and the applicant turned to alcohol to cope. The Board considered this contention but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance for alcoholism and Drug dependencies, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. (2) The applicant contends, in effect since the discharge he has been working for an Aerospace Manufacturing Facility. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service accomplishments did not outweigh the propriety of the discharge. 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 Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official regarding no service connected BH conditions that mitigate the applicant’s misconduct - Drug Abuse. Therefore, 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and 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 AR20210011613 1