1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 March 2022 b. Date Received: 8 March 2022 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 punishment has been served and has had its intended effect. The characterization of service was out of proportion to the infraction. The applicant made a stupid mistake and took responsibility. The applicant wants the blemish removed from the record so that it does not continue to undermine opportunities for growth and limit potential. The applicant is proud of the service and grateful for the opportunity. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 21 September 2022, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, post service accomplishments, and General letters of recommendation. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason was proper and equitable and voted not to change them. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority /Codes / Characterization: Misconduct / AR 210-26, Paragraphs 1-10 and 6-6 / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 2 October 2017 c. Separation Facts: Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 May 2017 (1) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to AR 210-15, procedures for processing major misconduct offenses of Cadets assigned to the United States Military Academy (USMA), the applicant was referred to a hearing before an investigating officer. The investigating officer found the applicant committed the following misconduct offenses: On or about 1 March 2015 and on or about 7 March 2016, the applicant conspired with Cadet J.G. and Cadet C.M, to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to wit: wrongful possession of Alprazolam, a schedule IV controlled substance, and in order to effect the object of the conspiracy that said Cadet C.M. and Cadet J.G. did drive a vehicle to Newburgh, New York, and purchase some amount of Alprazolam (a scheduled IV controlled substance), in violation of AR 210-26, pr. 6-14, Other Major Misconduct Offenses. (2) Investigation Officer (IO) Recommended Characterization: The IO recommended the applicant be turned back one year, enrolled in SLDP, and awarded the maximum punishments in line with a regimental board. (3) Legal Consultation Date: 25 May 2017 (4) Superintendent USMA Recommendation: On 30 May 2017, the Superintendent USMA, approved the Investigating Officer's findings of the Misconduct Hearing that the applicant violated AR 210-26, paragraph 6-14 (conspiracy to commit wrongful possession of a controlled substance) and recommended the applicant be separated from the USMA, transferred to the USAR in the grade of E-3 for two years, and ordered to active duty for two years, in accordance with AR 612-205, Table 3, Rule 6, and discharged from the Army with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 October 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date of Oath of Allegiance: 2 July 2014 b. Age at Allegiance / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 4 years, 2 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 23 July 2013 - 1 July 2014 / HD (USMA Preparatory School) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: See item 3c(1). The applicant provides a Letter of Recommendation from Lieutenant General, Retired Dahl, dated 3 March 2022, strongly recommended the applicant's requests for an upgrade be approved. The applicant provides a Letter of Recommendation from Lieutenant General, Retired Caslen, dated 3 March 2022, strongly recommended the applicant's requests for an upgrade be approved. The recommendation states, in part, it has been 5 years since the misconduct and the punishment has served its intended purpose. The applicant provides a Letter of Endorsement from Major General Holland, dated 25 March 2022, strongly endorsing the applicant's request for a discharge upgrade to honorable. The letter states, in part the punishment has served its intended purpose over the past five years. The misconduct was an isolated incident in an otherwise strong career at the academy. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, Separation Documents, Letters of Support-3 (46 total pages) 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant reports having a successful career. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): Army Regulation 210-26, provides policy and procedures for the general governance and operation of the United States Military Academy (USMA). Chapter 6, governs misconduct, honor, disciplinary and other grounds for separation and states cadets at the United States Military Academy are members of the Regular Army and subject to military law and the UCMJ. (1) Paragraph 1-10 states the Assistant Secretary of the Army will separate first- and second-class cadets where separation and call to active duty is recommended and inform the Secretary of the Army of the Army significant matters as appropriate. (2) Paragraph 6-6, Drugs and Narcotics states a cadet who violates Article 112s of the UCMJ (Art. 112a, UCMJ) may be separated from the Military Academy and awarded punishments under 6-4 of this regulation. 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's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant contends the punishment has been served and has had its intended effect. The applicant contends the characterization of service was out of proportion to the infraction. The applicant contends the applicant made a stupid mistake and took responsibility. Issues 1-3: The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant wants the blemish removed from the record so that it does not continue to undermine opportunities for growth and limit potential. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant is proud of the service and grateful for the opportunity to have served. The Board will consider the applicant service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant's Adjustment Disorder existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that an Adjustment Disorder does not impact an individual's ability to know right from wrong and understand the consequences of their actions. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's Adjustment Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant's separation -wrongful possession of Alprazolam and the object of the conspiracy the applicant did drive a vehicle to purchase some amount of Alprazolam (a scheduled IV controlled substance), which required prior planning and intent. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the punishment has been served and has had its intended effect. The Board considered this contention during proceedings and determined that, due to Lieutenant General recommendations supporting the contention, the applicant's post-service accomplishments have outweighed the possession and purchase of Alprazolam (a scheduled IV controlled substance). (2) The applicant contends the characterization of service was out of proportion to the infraction. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the above stated reasoning. (3) The applicant contends the applicant made a stupid mistake and accepts responsibility. The Board considered his contention and determined that the offense and subsequent discharge have served its purpose, and the applicant has successfully moved on and has led a successful post-service life. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, post service accomplishments, and Lieutenant General recommendations. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's length of service, post service accomplishments, and Lieutenant General recommendations outweighed the applicant's Alprazolam (a scheduled IV controlled substance) possession and purchase. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge, as the reason the applicant was discharged, Misconduct, is still both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as a cadet does not receive a RE-code upon discharge. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20220002029 1