1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 November 2019 b. Date Received: 12 December 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 requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant's misconduct was a direct result of his PTSD. The applicant graduated from West Point Academy in 2009 as an Aviation Officer. Afterwards he spent twelve months in Honduras, and was stationed at Hunter Army Air Field in Savannah. The applicant deployed to Afghanistan between 2012 and 2013, and while deployed there was an investigation of inappropriate comments towards a female officer. The applicant regretted his actions, and although he apologized immediately after saying the remarks, he could not take back what he had said and resulted in a reprimand filed in his official file. While in Afghanistan, the applicant's job was to edit gun tape for the Apache kills. At the time, he did not think anything of it, but he was basically watching people die over and over on a daily basis. When the applicant redeployed, he began waking up in the middle of the night, and was reliving events in gruesome detail. The applicant became moody, angry and would explode at his wife and have verbal disagreements often. During his deployment, the applicant injured his vertebrae and was subsequently referred for a surgical consult, as he had an abnormal MRI and was not receiving relief from Interlaminar Lumbar Steroid injections. On 15 July 2014, a MEB was convened and listed 21 diagnosed conditions the applicant had. Four of the conditions were considered not to meet retention standards. On 25 November 2014, the Informal PEB met to evaluate the applicant's case. The IPEB recommended the applicant receive a combined rating of 60 percent and receive a permanent disability retirement. The applicant was unaware of how severe his PTSD actually was at the time, and did his best to mitigate and downplay the symptoms. He saw struggling with PTSD as a weakness, and did not fully disclose the extent his mental health had deteriorated since his deployments. In August 2014, the applicant was arrested by CID and handed over to Chatham County officials, in Ohio. The was charged with rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition of a minor, based on events that happened when he was fourteen years old. As a child, the applicant was raped by a male family member, and molested by a female member of his family. The applicant was distraught emotionally, and spent twenty-nine days in jail before he was able to post a bond. He returned home to his wife, and discovered that she had sought a divorce attorney and been assassinating his character to everyone. The applicant discovered his wife had started talking to his best friend, who was the best man at their wedding. His wife and best friend had made plans to be involved sexually together, and she planned to divorce the applicant to be with the best friend. Between August 2014 and March 2015, the applicant was in a downward spiral, with little to no support. He had already been diagnosed with PTSD, and was seeing a counselor. He started taking medication, prescribed by his psychiatrist. The applicant maintained his innocence of the rape charge. He had a civilian attorney assisting him with the criminal charges, but was basically told that if he went to trial, he would likely be found guilty based on some emails he had exchanged with the victim's parents. The applicant was at his wits end, and believed he had no options. He was offered a plea deal, which he took, and in March 2015, he plead guilty to two counts of gross sexual imposition. He returned to his home to await sentencing, and went even further down a self-destructive path. In order to dull the constant pain and mental anguish he was feeling, the applicant began using cocaine. It was extremely out of character for him, and a direct result to his attempts to self-medicate. On 18 December 2015, the applicant tendered his unqualified resignation after consulting with CPT R. L., his attorney. On 13 September 2016, the applicant's resignation was accepted and he was discharged with an Under Other than Honorable characterization of service. He was not able to think clearly or comprehend how his mental illness had affected his choices. The only thing he could think of was avoiding any more legal proceedings and he signed the paperwork requesting his resignation. After his cocaine use and arrest for the Ohio charges, he continued to seek treatment for his PTSD in prison. The applicant eventually was able to stop taking medication. While in prison, his therapists were able to continue treating his PTSD. He has been able to stop the medication, but continues in his therapy for PTSD. Had circumstances been different, and the applicant fully understood the nature of his PTSD and mental illness, he would have requested a show cause board. He would have fought for medical disability instead of tendering his resignation. Since his time in prison in Ohio, the applicant has continued to seek mental health treatment and has made great progress. He is a veteran who deserves to have his misconduct realized for what it was, a cry for help from undiagnosed PTSD. The upgrade request is in light of the undiagnosed PTSD that was directly linked to his cocaine usage. The applicant was unaware that his cocaine use was an attempt to mask the painful symptoms he was experiencing from his deployment. He understands that now and in light of the guidance from then Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, he respectfully requests the Board grant an upgrade. Counsel further details the contentions in an allied legal brief provided with the application. In a records review conducted on 23 June 2021 and by a 4-1 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 3-13 / DFS / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 6 October 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 February 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8- 24, paragraphs 4-2b and 4-2c, for misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction, and for receiving adverse information filed in his Army Military Human Resource Record, due to the following reasons: Personal misconduct. On or about 9 May 2013, the applicant made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to a female Officer in his unit while deployed in Afghanistan. An investigation was conducted IAW AR 15-6, which substantiated the allegation that he made several demeaning and sexual comments to a female officer despite her warning that the comments were offensive to her. This misconduct resulted in the applicant receiving a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 8 June 2013, which was filed permanently in his Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR). Personal misconduct involving the use of drugs. Between on or about 13 April 2015 and on or about 16 April 2015, the applicant wrongfully used cocaine, a schedule II controlled substance. Conduct unbecoming an officer. The applicant engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman as indicated by the above-referenced General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand and misconduct described above. (3) Board of Inquiry: On 3 June 2014, a Board of Inquiry recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from the Army based on both misconduct and moral or professional dereliction, and derogatory information, with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. (4) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 26 April 2016, the GOSCA recommended approval of the applicant's request for resignation in lieu of elimination. / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) DASA Review Board (RB) Decision: On 7 July 2015, the DASA (RB) directed the case be returned to the GOSCA for a new FBOI be conducted based on the findings of the FBOI conducted on 3 June 2014 and the allegation of illegal use of cocaine that arose after that board, unless the applicant tendered an unconditional Resignation in Lieu of Elimination. On 13 September 2016, the DASA (RB) accepted the applicant's resignation and directed the applicant be discharged with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. The elimination was based on both misconduct and moral or professional dereliction (Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, and derogatory information (Army Regulation 600- 8-24, paragraph 4-2c) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 23 May 2009 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education: 23 / Bachelor's Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 15A 2B, Aviation, General / 7 years, 4 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Honduras, SWA / Afghanistan (14 December 2012 - 13 July 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, MUC, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, MOVSM g. Performance Ratings: 14 January 2011 - 7 March 2012 / Best Qualified 8 March 2012 - 15 October 2012 / Best Qualified 16 October 2012 - 9 May 2013 / Do Not Promote h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Commander Inquiry Findings and Recommendations, dated 11 May 2013, reflects the applicant did make inappropriate comments of sexual nature directed towards CPT A. O. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 8 June 2013, for violating the Army's Sexual Harassment and Equal Opportunity policies. An AR 15-6 investigation revealed the applicant made inappropriate and sexually explicit comments that offended other Soldiers who were around him. On 9 May 2013, the applicant was conversing with another captain when the applicant made an inappropriate comment to the effect of, "you shut your dirty whore mouth," to which she took offense. She then verbally expressed her concerns and displeasure in his comments, at which point the applicant made several more inappropriate comments until she became visibly upset and left the room. The applicant's immature and inappropriate behavior is in direct conflict with the Army's Sexual Harassment and Equal Opportunity policies. As a commissioned officer, his actions were completely unacceptable and would not be tolerated. Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers, dated 30 June 2014, reflects the formal board found: sufficient evidence to prove the applicant did commit acts of personal misconduct and that his actions could be considered Conduct Unbecoming a Commissioned Officer. The Board recommended the applicant be involuntarily separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. State of Ohio Judgement Entry Change of Plea, dated 25 March 2015, reflects the applicant was indicted, charging him with: Count 1, Rape, a felony of the first degree; Count 2, Gross Sexual Imposition, a felony of the third degree; Count 3, Gross Sexual Imposition, a felony of the third degree. The applicant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights and entered a plea of guilty to Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment. On oral motion by the State, Count 1 of the indictment was dismissed. The court accepted applicant's plea and entered a finding of guilty after inquiry made pursuant to Criminal Rule 11. The applicant was referred to the Adult Probation Department for a presentence investigation and report. Defendant's bond was continued. Commander's Critical Information Report 105, reflects the applicant was arrested in August 2014 for a warrant issued in the state of Ohio with the charge of rape. The applicant was released on Bail in September 2014. In March, the applicant accepted a plea bargain to remove the Rape charge and instead pleaded guilty to two counts of gross sexual imposition. The applicant was sentenced to six years in prison. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 6 May 2015, reflects the applicant tested positive for COC 43088,>LOL (cocaine), during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing, conducted on 16 April 2015. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) proceedings, dated 12 November 2014, reflects the applicant was found fit for the following conditions: posttraumatic stress disorder; traumatic brain injury; and, several other conditions. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 18 June 2014, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Anxiety Disorder NOS. Post-service medical treatment record, Progress Note, dated 5 January 2017, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD; and, Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, combined presentation. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Legal brief; GOMOR; DASA RB Decision (7 July 2015); DA Form 199; Initiation of Elimination (memo); DASA RB Decision (13 September 2016); post-service medical treatment records; third party letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 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 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23, provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer's service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Paragraph 1-23b, states an officer will normally receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service when the officer's military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A separation under general (under honorable conditions) normally appropriate when an officer: Submits an unqualified resignation; Separated based on misconduct; discharged for physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or neglect; and, for final revocation of a security clearance. (4) Paragraph 1-23c, states a discharge under other than honorable conditions is an administrative separation from the service. A discharge certificate will not be issued. An officer will normally receive an under other than honorable conditions when he or she: Resigns for the good of the Service; is dropped from the rolls (DFR) of the Army in accordance with paragraph 5-9; (3) is involuntarily separated due to misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or for the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 as a result of an act or acts of misconduct, including misconduct for which punishment was imposed; and, is discharged following conviction by civilian authorities. (5) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (6) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (7) Paragraph 4-2c, prescribes for the elimination of officer for derogatory information. (8) Paragraph 4-24a states an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case elect one of the following options: (1) Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; (2) request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and, Apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. 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 "BNC" as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct, and who submit a resignation in lieu of elimination. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, AR 600-8-24, PARA 3-13; block 26, DFS; and block 28, In Lieu of Trial By Court-Martial. The discharge packet confirms the DASA RB accepted the applicant's resignation and directed the discharge based on both misconduct and moral or professional dereliction (AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b), and derogatory information (AR 600-8- 24, paragraph 4-2c), with a Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under these paragraphs is "Unacceptable Conduct," and the separation code is "BNC". Army Regulation 635-5, Separation 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. Counsel contends the applicant was suffering from PTSD, which affected behavior and led to the discharge. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service PTSD. The AMHRR shows on 18 June 2014, the applicant underwent a Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. Counsel contends, had the applicant been of the right mind when resignation was submitted, the applicant would have fought for medical disability discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not take action to separate servicemembers for a medical condition solely to spare the servicemember who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. 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 arrived at this finding based upon the medical advisor's review of the Armed Forces Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV). The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and personality disordered traits. The ADRB noted the applicant was diagnosed through the MEB with PTSD, however, the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member of the board, noted the evaluation did not substantiate the diagnosis; rather, the evaluation highlights reasons not to diagnose PTSD and treating providers continued to assess and determine the applicant did not have PTSD. Post-service, the applicant submitted prison records reflecting PTSD and ADHD; however, the related evaluation for substantiation is absent. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? YES, the applicant had in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and personality disordered traits. While the MEB diagnosed PTSD, the documentation does not support the diagnosis and treating providers determined the applicant did not have PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? PARTIALLY, with regards to the drug use, liberal consideration compels mitigation if the PTSD is accepted. However, making sexually inappropriate comments is not indicative of trauma, and the ADRB does not accept that PTSD would mitigate this misconduct. Specifically, the behavior was not uncharacteristic, could be discussed coherently and without amnesia, and did not recreate elements of his reported deployment trauma. Accordingly, while liberal consideration was applied, there is no medical mitigation for the sexually inappropriate behavior. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? PARTIALLY - PTSD diagnosis mitigates Cocaine use. b. The ADRB determined that the applicant's characterization of service was proper and equitable based on the severity of the un-mitigated Misconduct - repeated demeaning comments to females with sexual connotations. c. Response to contention - the applicant's contention is that the misconduct was a direct result of his PTSD. However, making sexually inappropriate comments is not indicative of trauma. Specifically, the behavior was not uncharacteristic, could be discussed coherently and without amnesia, and did not recreate elements of his reported deployment trauma. Accordingly, while liberal consideration was applied, there is no medical mitigation for the sexually inappropriate behavior. The applicant's PTSD diagnosis does mitigate his cocaine use. d. Response to Contention - the applicant tendered his unqualified resignation after consulting with CPT R. L., his attorney. On 13 September 2016, the applicant's resignation was accepted and he was discharged with an Under Other than Honorable characterization of service. He was not able to think clearly or comprehend how his mental illness had affected his choices. The record shows the applicant was represented by counsel and made a choice of his own free will to tender his resignation. e. Response to Contention - Had circumstances been different, and the applicant fully understood the nature of his PTSD and mental illness, he would have requested a show cause board. He would have fought for medical disability instead of tendering his resignation. The record shows the applicant was represented by counsel and made a choice of his own free will to tender his resignation. f. Rationale for Decision: (1) The board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because of the severity of the un-mitigated misconduct - repeated demeaning comments to females with sexual connotations. (2) The board noted administrative errors specific to the separation authority, narrative reason and its associated SPD code, and the RE code on the DD Form 214. However, the board cannot take an action that was not requested nor can it make an applicant's situation worse. Therefore, the narrative reason and associated SPD code, and the RE code will remain unchanged. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: No Change b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change / No Change Authenticating Official: SECRETARIAL REVIEWING AUTHORITY: While the Board found the separation was both proper and equitable; as the Secretarial Reviewing Authority, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) reviewed the findings, conclusions, and the board's recommendation under the authority of Title 10 United States Code Section 1553(b) and Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 (Discharge Review Board (DRB) Procedures and Standards), enclosure E3.7.1.1.1. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) found sufficient evidence to upgrade the characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions). Therefore, your DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) will be corrected by issuing you a new one changing the characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions) and leaving the narrative reason and associated SPD code and the RE code unchanged. 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 NA - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Reentry 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 Affa ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20200002612 1