1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 November 2022 b. Date Received: 21 November 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, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable, a narrative reason change, and a reentry eligibility code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, performing the duties with exemplary remarks since entering the Army. The applicant was young Specialist and the decision the applicant made, which resulted in the discharge, was a cry for help. The applicant admits to misusing medications in an attempt to end the applicant's life. The applicant was sent to the Wounded Warrior Unit, to receive help, but instead, the squad leader was abusive towards the applicant, both physically and mentally. The applicant was withheld from attending appointments, which weighed on the applicant's mind to the extent of desiring to end it to get away from the perceived abuse the applicant endured for months. The applicant informed a crisis counselor of what led the applicant to desire to end the applicant's life. Previous evaluations show the applicant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); panic attacks; anxiety; and back pain, because of a broken back. The applicant was recommended for a medical evaluation board for back pain and was admitted to Cumberland Hall for a psychosocial assessment. The applicant was rated a 29 on the GAF chart, which indicates significant psychosocial issues. The applicant is aware suicide attempts by misuse of prescription medications are violations of the Army's zero-tolerance policy. The applicant is remorseful for the actions and realizes they were immature and irresponsible. The offense should not prevent the applicant from obtaining an honorable or medical discharge. The applicant has confessed to the mistake and if given the opportunity, would have corrected the mistake, and continued to serve honorably. The applicant served honorably for more than 4 years and 5 months and received numerous awards and decorations. The discharge was over 14 years ago. It is unjust to continue to characterize and punish the applicant. The applicant repaid the debts to society by fulfilling the terms of the non-judicial punishment for the infraction and is living with the consequences of the mistake. The applicant has demonstrated the ability to overcome the mistakes and move forward in a positive light. The incident does not illustrate the caliber of Soldier or the person the applicant has become. The applicant has developed into a model citizen, has no criminal record, no involvement in drugs or any type of alcohol abuse, or any "run-ins" with the law since the discharge. The applicant is dedicated to the Army and is an AMEDD recruit as a Major or otherwise, seeking an age waiver for the Medical Officer Corps. The applicant has been attending school to become a Physician's Assistant and raising two children with the spouse. The applicant continues to receive support for PTSD at Green Care Medical. The whole-person concept should be considered in reaching a military upgrade determination. Counsel argues the applicant's discharge should be upgraded to honorable, narrative reason changed to Secretarial Authority; and reentry code changed. Counsel and the applicant further detail the contentions in the Legal Brief and in the applicant's self-authored statement, submitted with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 10 July 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD, MDD and TBI outweighing the basis for separation - consuming alcohol while on prescription medications, driving under the influence, positive UA for cocaine, and refusing to perform extra duty. 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, and the reentry code to RE-3. Please see Section 10 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, Paragraph 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 14 May 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 April 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant disobeyed a lawful order by consuming alcohol while on prescription medications. While consuming alcohol, the applicant drove a vehicle and was cited for driving under the influence. On 30 January 2008, the applicant tested positive for use of cocaine. On 11 March 2008, the applicant refused to perform extra duty which the applicant was assigned as a consequence of a Field Grade Article 15. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 May 2008 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The separation authority determined disability processing was inappropriate, as set forth in Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, paragraphs 1-33b and c. The separation authority approved the separation under AR 635-200, paragraphs 14-12c (1) and (2). The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), is void of any evidence reflecting the applicant was absent without leave under AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(1). 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 November 2003 / 4 years / The applicant's AMHRR reflects the applicant was retained in service 177 days for the convenience of the government per verbal orders of the commander. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 127 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 4 years, 5 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (8 February 2006 - 7 September 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM, ASR, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Alcohol and Medication Pledge, dated 7 January 2008, reflects the applicant pledged not to drink alcoholic beverages while on various medications. The applicant acknowledged being given a direct order and failure to obey the order could result in punishment Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Military Police Report, dated 12 January 2008, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: driving under the influence (on post). The applicant's vehicle was stopped during a random vehicle search. A strong odor of an alcoholic beverage was emitting from the applicant's person. The applicant failed a field sobriety test, was apprehended, and transported to the Fort Campbell Police Station. The applicant submitted to an intoximeter test, with a result of .09 percent blood alcohol content. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 23 January 2008, reflects the applicant was driving while impaired. On 12 January 2008, the applicant was driving a motor vehicle in the state of Tennessee with a blood alcohol content of .09 percent, in violation of Tennessee law. Memorandum, subject: Drug Urine Positive (Cocaine, LSG, THC, MDMA, and 6SAM), dated 13 February 2008, reflects the applicant the applicant tested positive for COC (cocaine), during a Probable Cause (PO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 30 January 2008. A Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing form is attached to the memorandum. Field Grade Article 15, dated 11 March 2008, for failing to obey a lawful order issued by Staff Sergeant (SSG) J., not to consume alcohol until the applicant changed medications or received approval (12 January 2008), and wrongfully using cocaine (between 30 December 2007 and 30 January 2008). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $670 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 May 2008, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and was mentally responsible. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, undated, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and was mentally responsible. The applicant was evaluated at Adult Behavioral Health (ABH) upon discharge from Cumberland Hall Psychiatric Hospital. A treatment plan was established. Five Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct: Restriction of the consumption of alcohol; driving under the influence; failure to obey lawful order; refusal to perform extra duty; and violation of restriction. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Cumberland Hall Psychosocial Assessment, dated 29 October 2007, reflecting the applicant was admitted to Cumberland Hall because of a Lunesta overdose. The applicant indicated the applicant was frustrated because the applicant was trying to complete a medical evaluation board since December and had been at the Warrior Transition unit for one and a half months. The applicant did not want to deal with it anymore and took a bottle of pills. Cumberland Hall Behavioral Services, Discharge Summary, dated 5 November 2007, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate severity; alcohol abuse; hypertension; problems with primary support group; and global assessment functioning (GAF) of 55. Physical Profile (permanent), dated 30 November 2007, reflecting the applicant had the following medical conditions: PTSD, chronic, severe; back pain; and neck pain. Cumberland Hall Behavioral Health Services Discharge and Aftercare Plan, dated 22 January 2008, reflecting the applicant was admitted on 15 January 2008 and discharged on 22 January 2008. The applicant was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate severity; back pain; and hypertension. Medical Record-Supplemental Medical Data, Emergency Care Center, date illegible, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with anxiety / panic attacks. The applicant was instructed to follow- up with Behavioral Health, the next day. Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), dated 28 February 2008, reflecting the board found the applicant medically unfit for chronic mechanical lower back pain; chronic neck pain; and PTSD, and found the applicant medically fit for chronic bilateral foot pain and gastroesophageal reflux disease. The board recommended referral to a physical evaluation board (PEB). Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, dated 6 March 2008, reflecting the applicant was found disabled for: PTSD, recommended 50 percent disability; mechanical low back pain, recommended 0 percent disability; and chronic neck pain with neurologic deficits, recommended 0 percent disability. The bilateral foot pain and GERD were found to have met medical retention standards. The PEB recommended the applicant be permanently retired because the deployments were over a year and a half before the PEB. Green Care Medical letter, dated 26 October 2022, reflecting the applicant was a patient at the medical center since 2019 and is being treated for both chronic physical injuries as well as ongoing PTSD related symptoms. (2) AMHRR Listed: MEB and PEB proceedings; Cumberland Hall, Discharge Summary and Psychosocial Assessment; and Physical Profile, as described in previous paragraph 4j(1). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Legal Brief, with all listed exhibits A through P; PEB, and third party character reference (other third party character references are listed in the Legal Brief). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has developed into a model citizen; is an outstanding spouse and parent; and has no criminal record or involvement in drugs or alcohol abuse. The applicant is an AMEDD recruit or otherwise seeking an age waiver for the Medical Officer Corps and has been attending school to become a Physician's Assistant. 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-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, a narrative reason change, and a reentry eligibility code change. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to 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 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 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 reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-210, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of "4." An RE code of "4" cannot be waived, and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The applicant contends PTSD, other mental health, and medical issues affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant provided several medical documents reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, major depressive disorder, anxiety, and alcohol abuse. The applicant underwent a PEB, which recommended 50 percent disability for PTSD and 0 percent for the other rated conditions. The applicant provided third party statements to support the applicant's contention regarding the mental health and harassment. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation, including a PEB, which supports a diagnosis of in-service PTSD, major depressive disorder, anxiety, and alcohol abuse. The record shows the applicant underwent two mental status evaluations (MSEs) on 1 May 2008, which reflects the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The MEB, PEB, and MSEs were considered by the separation authority. The separation authority determined disability processing was inappropriate, as set forth in Army Regulation (AR) 635-200. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends harassment and by members of the unit and the leadership did not assist the applicant with the medical issues. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the command should have provided the opportunity for rehabilitation. 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 contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant contends the VA has granted 100 percent service-connected disability for PTSD. The applicant's AMHRR reflects the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and a PEB recommended 50 percent disability. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain employment in the medical field. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends having developed into a model citizen; being an outstanding spouse and parent; having no criminal record or involvement in drugs or alcohol abuse; being an AMEDD recruit or otherwise seeking an age waiver for the Medical Officer Corps; and attending school to become a Physician's Assistant. 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 statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good military service and / or good conduct after leaving the Army. 9. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): N/A. b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): Applicant provided oral argument and statements in support of the contentions provided in written submissions and in support of previously submitted documentary evidence. c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): N/A. 10. 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: Anxiety DO NOS; Chronic PTSD; Major Depressive DO (MDD); TBI. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found Anxiety DO NOS; Chronic PTSD; Major Depressive DO (MDD), TBI were diagnosed during military service. VA service connection of 100% for PTSD establishes it occurred during service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has several mitigating BH conditions, PTSD, MDD and TBI. As all of these conditions are associated with self medication with illicit drugs or alcohol, there is a nexus between these conditions and the DUI, driving while intoxicated with drugs in applicant's system and the positive UA for cocaine. As there is an association between PTSD and difficulty with authority figures/oppositional behavior, there is a nexus between the diagnosis of PTSD and refusal to perform extra duty. (Note-diagnosis of Anxiety DO is subsumed under the diagnosis of PTSD). (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD MDD and TBI outweighed the basis for separation - consuming alcohol while on prescription medications, driving under the influence, positive UA for cocaine, and refusing to perform extra duty - for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge and RE code needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD, MDD, and TBI outweighing the applicant's basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends PTSD, for which the applicant is service-connected by the VA, and other mental health and medical issues affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The Board found validity in this contention and voted to upgrade the applicant's discharge based on the applicant's PTSD, MDD, and TBI outweighing the applicant's basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD, MDD, and TBI outweighing the applicant's basis for separation. (4) The applicant contends harassment and by members of the unit and the leadership did not assist the applicant with the medical issues. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD, MDD, and TBI outweighing the applicant's basis for separation. (5) The applicant contends the command should have provided the opportunity for rehabilitation. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD, MDD, and TBI outweighing the applicant's basis for separation. (6) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD, MDD, and TBI outweighing the applicant's basis for separation. (7) The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. The Board determined that the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. (8) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain employment in the medical field. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (9) The applicant contends having developed into a model citizen; being an outstanding spouse and parent; having no criminal record or involvement in drugs or alcohol abuse; being an AMEDD recruit or otherwise seeking an age waiver for the Medical Officer Corps; and attending school to become a Physician's Assistant. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD, MDD, and TBI outweighing the applicant's basis for separation. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD MDD and TBI outweighing the basis for separation - consuming alcohol while on prescription medications, driving under the influence, positive UA for cocaine, and refusing to perform extra duty. Thus, relief is warranted. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD MDD and TBI outweighing the basis for separation - consuming alcohol while on prescription medications, driving under the influence, positive UA for cocaine, and refusing to perform extra duty. 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 Board voted to change the RE code to RE-3. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: RE-3 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 AR20230000856 1