IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 June 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200005637 APPLICANT REQUESTS: a discharge upgrade to honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: .DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) .personal addendum to DD Form 149 .numerous documents from his official military personnel file .civilian medical records .Department of Veterans Affairs mental health progress notes FACTS: 1.The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10,United States Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction ofMilitary Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case anddetermined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timelyfile.2.The applicant states he was sexually assaulted and raped by multipleperpetrators who were senior in rank to him. He was threatened and intimidatedby his superiors who taunted him with disciplinary actions including nonjudicial punishment and court-martial charges. He reached a point where he could nolonger comply with their requests. They made false accusations against him forassaulting a noncommissioned officer (NCO). When he met with his JudgeAdvocate the officer pressured him into signing a voluntary request for discharge.The officer never gave him the option to present his case at a court-martial. Hestates, in effect, he suffered many injustices by his perpetrators and requests adischarge upgrade.3.The applicant provides a separate addendum to his application outlining hismilitary experiences. a.He states he entered the U.S. Army on 6 December 1976 when he was17 years old attending basic combat training at Fort Knox, Kentucky. He was sent to Fort Benning, Georgia for infantry training. It was during advanced individual training that he recalls being sexually assaulted by an NCO. The NCO, a staff sergeant (SSG), called him into his office shutting the door behind him. He was threatened by the SSG who stated, "You’ll do whatever I say or you’ll get kicked out." Prior to this sexual assault, he believed he was an overachiever maintaining high performance and training standards, uniform inspection standards and his personal space in the barracks. During periods where he was required to train with the SSG, he would go on sick call to avoid the him. He tried his best to keep the repeated sexual assaults secret. He had a fixation on his personal hygiene and would excessively wash himself because he felt dirty. He successfully graduated from advanced individual training. His SSG perpetrator told him he would follow him to his next assignment. b.After graduation he was assigned to his first infantry unit in Germany.Within months his SSG assailant was reassigned from Georgia to his company in Germany. He attended additional training for track vehicles and was assigned as a driver. It was in the motor pool where his SSG assailant started intimidating and sexually assaulting him again. He tried to be a perfect Soldier so as to avoid negative attention, but the abuse continued. He was not granted leave believing it was part of a pattern of abuse by his superiors. He was fearful for his life. c.Soon another NCO, a sergeant (SGT), who said he was friends with theSSG perpetrator tried to purse him and then threatened him with nonjudicial punishment. This SGT also sexually assaulted him. The SSG continued sexually pursuing him, but when he refused the sexual advances of the SSG, he received nonjudicial punishment for driving a guard duty truck because the SSG provided false information to their battalion commander. He tried to defend himself. However, no one listened to him. He reported the sexual assaults to another SSG and to his company commander who refused to listen to him. d.His unit first sergeant (1SG) hated him because he had difficulty trainingand firing a medium anti-tank weapon. His 1SG also threatened him with nonjudicial punishment. He was reassigned to a retraining unit encountering people who used drugs and generally had poor attitudes towards the military. The NCOs of the retraining unit often told the Soldiers they were misfits. It was in the retraining unit that three NCOs sexually assaulted him. It was during one such encounter when he tried to defend himself that he was accused of hitting an NCO. After that altercation, he was sent to a military confinement facility. e.He was charged with assaulting an NCO, one of his perpetrators. He triedto tell his story to a prison guard who told him, in effect, he would not win his case against a superior NCO. He then met with his Judge Advocate and started to tell his version of events but the Judge Advocate stopped him from speaking telling him to sign the separation papers. He continued trying to tell his version of events, but the Judge Advocate would not listen telling him if he would not sign the chapter 10 (Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) papers he would go to the military prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He asserts he had no idea that by signing the paperwork it would be the equivalent of taking a plea deal. At the time he only had 8 months left on his enlistment contract. f.He concludes by outlining each of his supposed offenses includingpossession of marijuana during infantry training, being intoxicated and disorderly in public, hitting a SGT, and numerous other minor infractions. The NCOs who signed the documents were his perpetrators. He ends his statement by saying the reports and disciplinary actions were all part of the abuse he endured because his perpetrators were intimating him. When he finally fought back, the evidence was used to remove him from the Army. 4.The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 December 1979 for 3 years inthe rank and grade of private (PVT)/E-1. He completed infantry training and wassent to Germany for his first duty assignment with Company B, 1st Battalion, 15thInfantry Regiment. 5.A review of the applicant’s record and documents from his official militarypersonnel file that he provided from the National Personnel Record Center showshe accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, UniformCode of Military Justice (UCMJ) on five separate dates. Each nonjudicialpunishment was imposed by his company commander, a captain. The dates ofimposition of nonjudicial punishment follows: .on 19 February 1977 for wrongfully possessing marijuana .on 29 November 1977 for being drunk and disorderly in public .on 17 August 1978 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 30July 1978 and 1 August 1978; for behaving disrespectfully toward asecond lieutenant .on 17 November 1978 for breaking the restrictions of a medical quarantine .on 5 January 1978 for being disrespectful in language towards a corporalwho was in the execution of his duties 6.On 31 January 1979 the applicant’s brigade commander approved a bar toreenlistment initiated by his company commander for the aforementionednonjudicial punishments. Within the documents, his company commander stated,in effect, the applicant failed to demonstrate any promotion potential. He demonstrated he had a discreditable nature, was belligerent, and demonstrated he did not respect authority. He stated, "His recent attachment to the retraining battalion has met with negative rehabilitative success, further rehabilitative attempts would result in continued disciplinary problem." 7.On 22 January 1979 court-martial charges were referred to the applicant byhis company commander. The applicant was not offered punishment under theprovisions of Article 15, UCMJ. The government witnesses identified on hisstatement of charges includes the names of individuals he identified in hisaddendum to his application as being his perpetrators. The government relied onnumerous witness statements in developing the charges against the applicant.In turn, each would be called as a government witness during a trial by court-martial. The applicant was charged with the following offenses: .on or about 6 December 1978, he was disrespectful in language towardan SSG (one of his named perpetrators) by swearing and using foullanguage and in conjunction pulling down the arms of the SSG in order tostrike him with his fist .on or about 8 December 1978 without authority go from his appointedplace of duty, a clean-up detail .on or about 10 December 1978, he was disrespectful in language towarda sergeant first class (SFC), his superior NCO, by swearing andthreatening to go absent without leave and for failing to obey multipleorders of a specialist four, who was in the performance of his duties, toclean a conference room and building windows .on or about 12 December 1978 for failing to obey a lawful order of a SSG(one of his named perpetrators) 8.On 7 February 1979 the general court-martial convening authority referred theapplicant to a special court-martial with instructions it could impose a badconduct discharge. 9.On 5 March 1979 the applicant’s brigade commander forwarded additionalcourt-martial changes dated 1 March 1979 to the division commanding generalrequesting the additional court-martial charges be added to the applicant’s firstcharge statement. The second court-martial charge states, in effect, the applicantstruck or hit a SGT who was in the performance of his duties as a superior NCO.Additionally, he recommended the applicant be tried by a special court-martialempowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge. He also stated the applicantwas placed in pre-trial confinement on 17 February 1979. 10.Also on 5 March 1979 the applicant met with a Judge Advocate who advisedhim of his court-martial charges and the fact that if tried by a duly ordered court- martial, he could receive a bad conduct or a dishonorable discharge. After counseling the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the Service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. He acknowledged or indicated he understood: .he had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person .he was making his request of his own free will .he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charges against him or oflesser offenses that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct ordishonorable discharge .he had no desire for further rehabilitation or to perform further militaryservice .if his discharge request was accepted, he could be discharged under otherthan honorable conditions and issued an Under Other Than HonorableDischarge Certificate .as a result of the issuance an Under Other Than Honorable DischargeCertificate he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits .he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by theVeterans Administration .he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under bothFederal and State laws .he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life .he elected not to submit statements on his own behalf .he acknowledged he was counseled and understood his request with hissignature 11.On 16 March 1979 a senior Judge Advocate reviewed the applicant’s court-martial charges, evidence and his request for discharge for the good of theservice. The Judge Advocate stated the discharge was not based on whole or inpart on drugs or alcohol. There was no evidence of drug involvement and noevidence was based on evidence due the participation in the Community Drugand Alcohol Center for Alcoholism. He concluded by stating the request fordischarge was done in accordance with the 8 February 1974 order of the UnitedStates District Judge in the Committee for GI Rights (Civil Action Number 835-73). He recommended the applicant receive a discharge under other thanhonorable conditions. If the general court-martial convening authority accepts theapplicant’s request for administrative separation his court-martial charges andspecifications would be dismissed. 12.On 16 March 1979 the separation authority approved the applicant’s requestfor administrative discharge for the good of the Service dismissing the court-martial charges and specifications that were preferred against him. The commanding general directed issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate and character of service. 13.Accordingly, the applicant returned to the continental United States foradministrative separation processing at Fort Dix, New Jersey. On 9 April 1979 hewas discharged from the Regular Army receiving a DD Form 214 (Report ofSeparation from Active Duty) documenting his service. He had served for2 years, 4 months and 4 days. The authority for his discharge is shown aschapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. His separation program designator codeis shown as "JFS." His character of service is shown as under conditions otherthan honorable with issuance of DD Form 794A (Under Other Than HonorableDischarge Certificate). The applicant and a government official signed hisDD Form 214 and he indicated he received a copy of it. 14.On 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the ServiceDischarge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction ofMilitary/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSDcriteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking actionon applications from former service members administratively discharged underother than honorable conditions and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by acompetent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare providerin order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization ofthe applicant's service. 15.On 25 August 2017 the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense forPersonnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance when considering requestsby Veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mentalhealth conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder; traumatic brain injury;sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal consideration toVeterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based inwhole or in part on those conditions or experiences. A diagnosis made by alicensed psychiatrist or psychologist that the mental health condition existedduring military service will receive liberal consideration. determination made bythe VA that an applicant’s mental health condition is connected to military serviceis persuasive evidence that the condition existed or experience occurred duringmilitary service. a.Evidence of misconduct, including any misconduct underlying a Veteran’sdischarge, may be evidence of a mental health condition. Evidence may come from sources other than the Veteran’s service record including statements from family members, friends, roommates, co-workers, or clergy. A Veteran’s testimony alone, oral or written, may establish the existence of a condition or experience, that the condition or experiences existed during or was aggravated by military service, and that the condition or experiences excuses or mitigate the discharge. b.Mental health conditions inherently affect one’s behaviors and choicescausing Veterans to think and behave differently than might otherwise be expected. Veterans may have difficulty presenting a thorough appeal for relief because of how the asserted condition or experience has impacted their life. Premediated misconduct is not generally excused by mental health conditions. Review Boards will exercise caution in assessing the casual relationship between asserted conditions or experiences and premediated misconduct. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge. An honorable discharge characterization does not require flawless military service. The relative severity of some misconduct can change over time, thereby changing the relative weight of the misconduct to the mitigating evidence in a case. Finally, liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade. Relief may be appropriate for minor misconduct commonly 16.On 29 January 2021 the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Commandresponded to a request for information from the staff of the Army Review BoardsAgency. A search of the Army criminal file indexes, criminal investigative andmilitary police reports, revealed no records pertaining to the applicant. 17.On 19 February 2021 a letter and email were sent to the applicant by thestaff of the Board requesting he provide medical evidence showing he has abehavioral health disorder related to his multiple sexual assaults or that hesought behavioral health treatment as a victim of sexual assault. 18.On 3 March 2021, he responded by submitting medical evidence in supportof his application for a discharge upgrade based on sexual trauma and itsassociated PTSD. a.He provided a medical doctor’s narrative summary, page 2 only andundated though it is signed, showing he has major depression (single episode, moderate), panic attacks and PTSD. His Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) on the undated narrative summary shows his GAF was 35. (A score of between 31 to 40 identifies a person with some impairment in reality testing or communication and in other areas such as work, family relationship, judgment, thinking or mood (depressed mood).) he medical doctor started the applicant on paroxetine, an antidepressant medication, and directed the applicant undergo psychotherapy. (A review of additional medical evidence shows his medical doctor practiced medicine through a county mental health department.) He provides mental health treatment records showing the same medical doctor treated him for mental health disorders from on or about 18 July 1996 through on or about 22 December 1997. (1)On 18 July 1996, a county mental health department medicationtreatment record shows the applicant was prescribed fluoxetine (Prozac), an antidepressant medication to treat his panic attacks. He responded well to his medical treatment and medication. (2)On 25 February 1997, he complained he had no energy and his moodwas depressed. A medical doctor determined the applicant’s depression had relapsed and increased the applicant’s prescription of Prozac to 40 milligrams per day. (3)On 18 March 1997, he received a new prescription of sumatriptan formanagement of his headaches and he appeared to have a partial response to the increased Prozac medication. (4)By 10 June 1997, a medical doctor prescribed the applicant lithium asa mood stabilizer medication. He still was experiencing headaches and complained of chronic fatigue. (5)On 11 August 1997 the lithium was discontinued because the applicantstated the lithium did not make a difference in how he felt. He also sought assistance with completing his social security application. b.On 25 April 2019, A VA licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) reviewedthe applicant’s PTSD symptoms according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) Version IV. here is multiple criterion. In Criteria A, he experienced multiple incidents of military sexual trauma and felt pressured to accept a less than honorable discharge when he reported his sexual abuse. In Criteria B, he experiences intrusive thoughts daily and distressing dreams associated with his traumatic events. He has triggers when he watches certain scenes (depicting sexual trauma) on television or in movies. He also experiences physiological responses to certain triggers. In Criteria C, he has persistently avoided discussing his experiences for over 40 years. He tries to avoid news accounts of sexual trauma. Within his relationships he avoids intimacy and has difficulty trusting others. In Criteria D, he has difficulty remembering the details of his traumatic events and has persistent negative beliefs presuming all people are dangerous. He is fearful that others will find out about his sexual trauma. He has difficulty expressing his emotions and prefers to listen or work with music. It appears during his early post-service years and up until the 1999 he participated in reckless behavior using drugs to self-medicate and to suppress trauma memories. (In 1999, he committed to sobriety.) He struggles to concentrate and experiences bouts of insomnia. The LCSW concluded her narrative progress note by stating the applicant appears to present with PTSD symptoms according to the DSM-VI. c.On 24 November 2020 he was seen at a medical clinic for elevated blood-pressure. Among his list of medical conditions, it was noted he was prescribed Xanax for his episodic paroxysmal anxiety (panic disorder). d.A letter from Westchester Medical Center Health Network in New York,dated 24 February 2021, informed the applicant it did not have his hospitalization records because they only keep records for 10 years. 19.MEDICAL REVIEW: a.The applicant is applying to the Army Board for Correction of MilitaryRecords (ABCMR) for a discharge upgrade to honorable, and a personal appearance before the Board. b.The applicant states he was sexually assaulted and raped by multipleperpetrators who were senior in rank to him. He was threatened and intimidated by his superiors who tautened him with disciplinary actions including nonjudicial punishment and court-martial charges. He reached a point where he could no longer comply with their requests. They made false accusations against him for assaulting a noncommissioned officer (NCO). When he met with his Judge Advocate the officer pressured him into signing a voluntary request for discharge. The officer never gave him the option to present his case at a court-martial. He states, in effect, he suffered many injustices by his perpetrators and requests a discharge upgrade. c.The ABCMR Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor was asked to review this case.Documentation reviewed includes: .DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) .personal addendum to DD Form 149 .excerpts from his official military personnel file d.VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) were reviewed. e.A review of the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application(AHLTA) & Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS) were not reviewed as they were not in use at the time of service. f.The ABCMR Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military serviceand the circumstances of the case. The ROP indicates that the applicant entered military service on 6 DEC 1976 and was discharged on 9 April 1979 with a character of service is shown as under conditions other than honorable. g.A review of the applicant’s record and documents from his official militarypersonnel file that he provided from the National Personnel Record Center shows he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on five separate dates. Each nonjudicial punishment was imposed by his company commander, a captain. The dates of imposition of nonjudicial punishment follows: .on 19 February 1977 for wrongfully possessing marijuana .on 29 November 1977 for being drunk and disorderly in public .on 17 August 1978 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 30July 1978 and 1 August 1978; for behaving disrespectfully toward asecond lieutenant .on 17 November 1978 for breaking the restrictions of a medical quarantine .on 5 January 1978 for being disrespectful in language towards a corporalwho was in the execution of his duties h.On 22 January 1979 court-martial charges were referred to the applicant byhis company commander. The applicant was not offered punishment under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ. The government witnesses identified on his statement of charges includes the names of individuals he identified in his addendum to his application as being his perpetrators. The government relied on numerous witness statements in developing the charges against the applicant. In turn, each would be called as a government witness during a trial by court-martial. The applicant was charged with the following offenses: .on or about 6 December 1978, he was disrespectful in language towardan SSG (one of his named perpetrators) by swearing and using foullanguage and in conjunction pulling down the arms of the SSG in order tostrike him with his fist .on or about 8 December 1978 without authority go from his appointedplace of duty, a clean-up detail .on or about 10 December 1978, he was disrespectful in language towarda sergeant first class (SFC), his superior NCO, by swearing andthreatening to go absent without leave and for failing to obey multipleorders of a specialist four, who was in the performance of his duties, toclean a conference room and building windows .on or about 12 December 1978 for failing to obey a lawful order of a SSG(one of his named perpetrators) i.On 5 March 1979 the applicant’s brigade commander forwarded additionalcourt-martial changes dated 1 March 1979 to the division commanding general requesting the additional court-martial charges be added to the applicant’s first charge statement. The second court-martial charge states, in effect, the applicant struck or hit a SGT who was in the performance of his duties as a superior NCO. Additionally, he recommended the applicant be tried by a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge. He also stated the applicant was placed in pre-trial confinement on 17 February 1979. j.Also on 5 March 1979 the applicant met with a Judge Advocate who advisedhim of his court-martial charges and the fact that if tried by a duly ordered court-martial, he could receive a bad conduct or a dishonorable discharge. After counseling the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the Service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. k.On 16 March 1979 a senior Judge Advocate reviewed the applicant’s court-martial charges, evidence and his request for discharge for the good of the service. The Judge Advocate stated the discharge was not based on whole or in part on drugs or alcohol. There was no evidence of drug involvement and no evidence was based on evidence due the participation in the Community Drug and Alcohol Center for Alcoholism. He concluded by stating the request for discharge was done in accordance with the 8 February 1974 order of the United States District Judge in the Committee for GI Rights (Civil Action Number 835-73). He recommended the applicant receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions. If the general court-martial convening authority accepts the applicant’s request for administrative separation his court-martial charges and specifications would be dismissed. l.On 29 January 2021 the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Commandresponded to a request for information from the staff of the Army Review Boards Agency. A search of the Army criminal file indexes, criminal investigative and military police reports, revealed no records pertaining to the applicant. m.On 19 February 2021 a letter and email were sent to the applicant by thestaff of the Board requesting he provide medical evidence showing he has a behavioral health disorder related to his multiple sexual assaults or that he sought behavioral health treatment as a victim of sexual assault. As of 5 April 2021, the applicant had not responded to the Agency request for medical evidence showing a diagnosis of a mental health disorder attributed to his military service. n.JLV does not contain any data or Behavioral Health Diagnoses. o.The applicant submitted additional medical documentation confirming aPTSD diagnosis related to MST. An encounter dated 8 APR 2019 (Intake assessment) notes: Veteran seems to suffer with PTSD symptoms associated with his MST such as intrusive memories, nightmares, distressed sleep, hypervigilance, isolation, numbness in relationships, anxiety and depression. p.After reviewing the available information and in accordance with the 3 Sep2014 Hagel Liberal Consideration Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017 Clarifying Guidance, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral Health advisor that the applicant has a mitigating condition of MST. The applicant met retention standards at the time of discharge. The applicant does not have a service connection. Under liberal guidance, MST is a mitigating factor for the applicant’s unsatisfactory performance including the charges of assault, which may be defensive in nature or possibly fabricated charges based on the applicant’s statements. In light of these findings, it is the recommendation of this Agency psychologist that the characterization of the applicant’s discharge be upgraded to “Honorable” and the narrative reason be changed to “Secretarial Authority”. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, to include the DoD guidance on liberal consideration when reviewing discharge upgrade requests, the Board found relief was warranted. Based on the documentation available for review, the Board majority concurred with medical advisory finding that the applicant had a mitigating condition that led to his conduct and,ultimately impacted his performance. Notwithstanding the advisory, the dissenting Board member found insufficient documentation to warrant relief. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the applicant's record should be corrected as a matter of liberal consideration. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 :XX :XX : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : XXX DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending his DD Form 214 for the period ending 9 April 1979 to show in: .item 9.c (Authority and Reason): Secretarial Authority .item 9.e (Character of Service): Honorable X CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. REFERENCES: 1.Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications forcorrection of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of thealleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excusean applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if theABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2.Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation ofenlisted personnel. a.An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles therecipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member'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. b.A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorableconditions. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c.A discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) is anadministrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial. When a Soldier is discharged UOTHC, the separation authority will direct an immediate reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. d.Chapter 5, Section II (Secretarial Authority) provided for the separation ofenlisted personnel for the convenience of the government and it is the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. e.Chapter 10 provides for an enlisted Soldier who had committed an offenseor offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge, in lieu of trial by court-martial, at any time after the charges had been preferred. The Soldier's request was to include an acknowledgement that he/she understood the elements of the offense(s) and was guilty of the charge(s), or of a lesser-included offense. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate. 3. Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separation – Separation Documents) in effect at the time stated the DD Form 214 is a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty service. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. The sources documents used in preparing the DD Form 214W (Worksheet) included the DA Form 201 (Military Personnel Records Jacket), DA Forms 2 and 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record), enlistment records and discharge authorization documents. 4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designators (SPD)) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service and the separation designator codes to be used for the stated reasons. . SPD KFF is the current code for use directed by the service secretary under the provisions of Army Regulation, Chapter 5, Section Il . SPN JFS was the code used for enlisted personnel separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10 //NOTHING FOLLOWS//