1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 29 May 2019 b. Date Received: 18 July 2019 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant through legal counsel requests an upgrade to honorable, a change to the narrative reason for discharge, and a change to the separation code and reentry eligibility (RE) code. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge warrants an upgrade for three reasons; it meets the conditions for liberal consideration under 10 U.S.C. 1553(d) (3) (A) (ii); and it meets the definition of an honorable discharge under AR 635-200; and post-service conduct demonstrates honorable character. The applicant served honorably for over a decade. The applicant was sent on three combat deployments, and experienced routine IED attacks and ambushes. One of these took the life of a good friend. Despite the efforts to seek help, the Army routinely yanked the applicant from counseling and support services to send on several deployments. The only steady treatment the applicant could find was at the bottom of a bottle. The applicant stated I am textbook example of the veteran that the Hagel, Carson, and Kurta memos were designed to help. The applicant deserves to have the discharge upgrade to be proud of the lengthy, and honorable service to this nation. In a records review conducted on 13 July 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD diagnoses), and post-service accomplishments. 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. The Board determined the RE code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 20 May 2014 c. Separation Facts: (Based on the Documents Submitted by the Applicant) (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF / The information was taken from the documents the applicant submitted with the application. The applicant was informed of the following reasons: the unit commander recommendation memorandum makes reference to the Specific, factual reason(s) for action recommended as: On 21 May 2013 the applicant was arrested by the Military Police at Fort Meade, MD for the following offenses: (A) Operating motor vehicle with operator not restrained by seatbelt (MTA22-412.3(b); (B) Fail to transport child under age 16 in a seatbelt (MTA 22-412.2)(e); (C) Failing to secure child under age 8 in child safety seat when transporting in a motor vehicle (MTA 22.412(d); (C) Attempt by driver to elude uniformed police by failing to stop vehicle (MTA 21-904(b1); (D) Driving vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (MTA 21-902(a1)); (E) Driving while impaired by alcohol (MTA 21-902(b1); (F) Driving vehicle while under the influence of alcohol while transporting a minor (MTA 21-902(A3)). (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 April 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 January 2007 / 4 years (After extending the enlistment several times, on 17 August 2010, the applicant again extended the contract giving the applicant a new ETS date of 18 December 2013) (The record is void of any documents extending the enlistment to cover the period of service under review) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / 2 years' college / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 88M14, Motor Transport Operator / 14 years, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 3 May 2000 to 9 July 2003 / HD RA, 10 July 2003 to 22 January 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (14 June 2004 to 2 May 2005 and 17 September 2008 to 16 September 2009) and Kuwait (17 August 2006 to 16 August 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3, AAM-2, AGCM-4, ICM-2CS, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTM, NOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: 1 March 2007 to 30 September 2007, Fully Capable 1 March 2007 to 29 February 2008 / Fully Capable 1 March 2008 to 28 February 2009 / Fully Capable 1 March 2009 to 28 February 2010 / Fully Capable 1 March 2010 to 25 October 2010 / Fully Capable 26 October 2010 to 25 October 2011 / Among The Best 26 October 2011 to 31 May 2012 / Among the Best 1 June 2012 to 7 February 2013 / Among the Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 4 August 2009, for violating a lawful general order, to wit: paragraph 3c, Multi-National Corps-Iraq General Order Number 1, dated 4 April 2009, by wrongfully possessing alcohol, in violation of article 92, UCMJ. The punishment consisted of reduction toe E-4, forfeiture of $1,159.00 pay per month for two months (one month suspended), extra duty for 45 days (22 days suspended), and restriction for 45 days (suspended). Military Police Report, dated 22 May 2013, which indicates the applicant was the subject of investigation for operating a motor vehicle with the operator not restrained by seat belt; failing to transport children under ages of 16 and 8 (in a seat belt); attempting by driver to elude uniformed police by failing to stop vehicle; driving vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; driving vehicle while impaired by alcohol; and driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol while transporting a minor. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment, document which indicates the applicant was a referral as a result of being apprehended by Fort Meade Military Police on 21 May 2013 and charged with driving a vehicle. Reason for referral were DUI Charges, increased use of excuses; decreased quality of work, sporadic word; absenteeism, improper use of drugs, unusual excuses for absences, and avoidance of Supervisor or associates. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 16 July 2013, which indicates the applicant was reprimanded for having been stopped by the Fort Meade Military Police for a seatbelt infraction while departing the installation. The applicant attempted to flee the scene in the vehicle but was immediately stopped. Upon contact with the applicant a moderate odor of an alcoholic beverage was emitting from the applicant person. The applicant performed poorly on a field sobriety test and was arrested and charged with DUI, fleeing the scene, and seatbelt violations for the applicant, the 13-year-old son, and the two-year-old son. After being transported to the DES, the applicant refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. In accordance with Army Regulation 27-10, paragraph 3-3b and Army Regulation 190-5, paragraph 2-7a(2), the applicant was reprimanded. Memorandum of Record, dated 18 March 2014, submitted by the applicant indicates the applicant was referred to ASAP following an alcohol-related incident. The applicant was assessed on 22 May 2013 and met criteria for enrollment into the outpatient rehabilitation program at Fort Meade, Maryland. Medical Evaluation Board Clinic Kimbrough Ambulatory Care Center, Fort Meade, MD, submitted by the applicant makes reference to the applicant having been referred for a diagnosis of PTSD. However, it was noted that the applicant's PTSD, was medically unacceptable based on 2006 information. Court documents from U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore), make reference to the applicant having been charged with driving and attempting to drive a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Chronological Records of Medical Care submitted by the applicant, make reference to the applicant having had problems with Major Depression, Single Episode, Chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Stress Disorder. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 June 2013, which indicates the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Alcohol Dependence; Depressive Disorder (not otherwise specified). It was noted that the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. At the time of the evaluation, it was noted that the applicant was being treated for alcohol dependence PTSD and depression. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; a legal brief; medical documents to include chronological records of medical care, several noncommissioned evaluation reports; service school evaluation reports; enlistment / reenlistment documents; Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision Letter, and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. The Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision Letter, submitted by the applicant indicates the applicant has been awarded 50 percent service-connected disability for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with alcohol use disorder (also claimed as PTSD, depression, adjustment disorder, sleep disorder, and alcohol dependence). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends that since discharge, the applicant has been an upstanding member of society, and has completed a bachelor's degree and is working towards a master's degree. Understanding that the applicant one mistake should not destroy the history of hard work and dedication. The applicant was hired by the Department of Public Service for Anne Arundel Country, Maryland. The applicant continues volunteering as a coach for a local youth basketball team and continues treatment for the service-connected PTSD, TBI, and alcohol use disorder. 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) Paragraph 14-12c, states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. e. 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 waivable and nonwaivable 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 waivable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. f. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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 through legal counsel requests an upgrade to honorable, a change to the narrative reason for discharge, and a change to the separation code and reentry eligibility (RE) code. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct (serious offense), with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation 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 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 seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge warrants an upgrade for three reasons; it meets the conditions for liberal consideration under 10 U.S.C. 1553(d) (3) (A) (ii); and it meets the definition of an honorable discharge under AR 635-200; and post-service conduct demonstrates honorable character. The applicant served honorably for over a decade. The applicant was sent on three combat deployments, and experienced routine IED attacks and ambushes. One of these took the life of a good friend. Despite the efforts to seek help, the Army routinely yanked the applicant from counseling and support services to send on several deployments. The only steady treatment the applicant could find was at the bottom of a bottle. The applicant stated I am textbook example of the veteran that the Hagel, Carson, and Kurta memos were designed to help. The applicant deserves to have the discharge upgrade to be proud of the lengthy, and honorable service to this nation. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, the merit of these contentions cannot be established because the complete facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown. The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the complete facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet this burden of proof since the complete discharge packet is not available in the official record. It should also be noted; the Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 June 2013 and independent documents submitted by the applicant with the application indicate the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Alcohol Dependence; Depressive Disorder (not otherwise specified). It was noted that the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. At the time of the evaluation, it was noted that the applicant was being treated for alcohol dependence PTSD and depression. 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: PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Depressive Disorder NOS, and Alcohol Abuse. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant held in-service behavioral health diagnoses of PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Depressive Disorder NOS, and Alcohol Abuse. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that due to the nexus between trauma and substance use, the alcohol related events are mitigated. However, the gravity of some of the charges should be considered in determining the appropriate upgrade; not securing children and eluding police. (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 PTSD outweighed the DUI while transporting children, failure to transport children wearing a seatbelt, failure to wear a seatbelt while operating a vehicle, and trying to elude the police, basis for separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant's counsel seeks relief contending applicant's discharge warrants an upgrade based on liberal consideration. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to PTSD mitigating the applicant's alcohol related incidents. (2) The applicant's counsel contends applicant meets the definition of an honorable discharge under AR 635-200, applicant served honorably for over a decade. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant's service record. (3) The applicant's counsel contends applicant's post-service conduct demonstrates honorable character. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. 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. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD, length, and quality of service, to include combat service and post-service accomplishments outweigh the applicant's alcohol related incidents basis for separation. (4) The applicant's counsel contends applicant served in three combat deployments and experienced routine IED attacks and ambushes. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant's service record. (5) The applicant's counsel seeks relief contending the Army routinely yanked applicant from counseling and support services to go on deployment after deployment. The only steady treatment applicant could find was at the bottom of a bottle. 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, length, and quality of service, to include combat service and post-service accomplishments outweigh the applicant's DUI while transporting children, failure to transport children wearing a seatbelt, failure to wear a seatbelt while operating a vehicle, and trying to elude the police, basis for separation. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD diagnoses), and post-service accomplishments. 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. The Board determined the RE code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's length, and quality of service, to include combat service and post- service accomplishments mitigated the applicant's misconduct of DUI while transporting children, failure to transport children wearing a seatbelt, failure to wear a seatbelt while operating a vehicle, and trying to elude the police. 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 and the applicant's service limiting PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Depressive Disorder NOS, and Alcohol Abuse conditions. 10. 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: 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 AR20190009388 1