1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 1 September 2020 b. Date Received: 8 September 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant’s PTSD, depression, and anxiety from several combat tours triggered the domestic event that led to the discharge. The applicant began exhibiting classic signs of PTSD and depression right after the first deployment. Upon returning home after the third deployment, the applicant was charged with second degree assault for an incident that occurred with the applicant’s then wife (ex-wife) who was having an affair. There is no excuse for the applicant’s actions, no matter how much the applicant was suffering from the effects of war. Prior to the war the applicant had never been in trouble in the applicant’s whole life and was always known as a kind, calm, caring person that looked out for others. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 15 November 2023, and by a 5-0 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2B / JNC / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 7 February 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 July 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, subparagraphs 4-2b (5) and (8), due to personal acts of misconduct and conduct unbecoming of an officer, due to the following reasons: (a) The applicant physically assaulted the applicant’s pregnant spouse on divers occasions. (b) The applicant threatened the applicant’s pregnant spouse with a weapon on divers occasions. (c) Conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the above referenced items. (d) General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), 26 July 2012, substantiates derogatory information, which is detailed above, permanently filed in the official military personnel file in accordance with AR 600-37, paragraph 3-4b. (3) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): On 28 August 2013, the BOI adjourned. The BOI found that the allegation of physically assaulting the applicant’s pregnant spouse on divers occasions was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The BOI recommended that the applicant be separated from the Army with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 10 October 2013, the General Office of Show Cause Authority (GOSCA) recommended the applicant be eliminated from service. / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (6) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 12 November 2013, the Army Board of Review for Eliminations recommended the applicant be eliminated from the United States Army with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. (7) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 January 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 1 January 2005 / NIF b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 22 / Bachelor’s Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 13A Field Artillery, General / 7 years, 6 months, and 27days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 13 August 2004 - 31 December 2004 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (1 June 2005 - 20 April 2006; 11 March 2008 - 10 March 2010), Afghanistan (2 July 2010 - 1 July 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-4CS, BSM-2, ARCOM-3, AAM, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM-2, ASR, OSR-2, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 27 May 2005 – 27 April 2006 / Best Qualified 28 April 2006 - 7 November 2006 / Best Qualified 1 January 27 - 25 June 2007 / Best Qualified 26 June 2007 - 4 January 2008 / Best Qualified 5 January 28 - 15 March 2009 / Best Qualified 16 March 29 - 31 August 2009 / Best Qualified 14 September 2009 - 1 September 2011 / Best Qualified 2 September 2011 - 1 September 2012 / Do Not Promote h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) Two Personnel Action forms, shows the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: (a) From present for duty (PDY) to confined by civil authorities (CCA), effective 11 January 2012; and (b) From CCA to PDY, 12 January 2012. (2) Memorandum, AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations in case of (Applicant), 1 June 2012, shows the applicant: (a) Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the investigating officer found: * The applicant did commit physical and emotional abuse of the applicant’s wife since the beginning of their relationship * The applicant’s attempt(s) to pressure the applicant’s wife to not cooperate with law enforcement investigations or court proceedings cannot be verified * The applicant's medical/mental condition and prognosis does not impact the applicant’s potential for continued service * According to the applicant’s providers, the applicant is fit for duty and meets retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501 (b) The investigating officer recommended that the applicant: * Be given a GOMOR to be filed in the applicant’s OMPF * Be eliminated from the Army in accordance with AR 600-8-24 * If eliminated from the military, state on front page “FOR DOMESTIC ABUSE/ VIOLENCE,” giving the wife and child the ability to self-sponsor as a dependent and maintain a government identification card * Lose security clearance * Continue psychiatric/psychological counseling and treatment (3) GOMOR, 26 July 2012, states on or about 7 August 2011, the applicant assaulted the applicant's wife in a hotel room by beating the applicant's wife with a 22 pound backpack, thereby causing the applicant's wife's injuries and sending the applicant's wife to the hospital. On or about 31 October 2011, the applicant was once again abusive towards the applicant’s wife and began to slap the applicant’s wife around. The applicant then chased the applicant’s fleeing pregnant wife, grabbed the applicant’s wife by the hair, took the applicant’s wife to the ground, and then proceeded to drag the applicant’s wife back into the house. In the house, while the applicant's pregnant wife was on hands and knees, the applicant pressed the barrel of a firearm against the applicant’s wife’s forehead, while threatening with words such as “[applicant] have killed 18 fucking people in [the applicant’s] life, [applicant] am not afraid for [applicant’s wife] to be 19.” From November 2011 until January 2012, the applicant continued verbal and physical abuse on the applicant’s wife by pushing, grabbing by the neck, head, and hair, and slamming the applicant’s wife’s head against a car window. In December 2011, the applicant once again threatened the applicant's wife with the firearm by placing the barrel of a firearm on the applicant’s wife’s forehead, while calling the applicant’s wife “a fucking cunt.” (4) Memorandum for Applicant, Initiation of Elimination, (Applicant), 26 July 2012, shows the applicant had to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, subparagraphs 4-2b (5) and (8), due to personal acts of misconduct and conduct unbecoming of an officer, due to the following reasons: * The applicant physically assaulted the applicant’s pregnant spouse on divers occasions * The applicant threatened the applicant’s pregnant spouse with a weapon on divers occasions * Conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the above referenced items (5) Memorandum, Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notification of Initiation of Elimination, (Applicant), 27 July 2012, shows the applicant elected to submit a statement or document on the applicant’s own behalf, a resignation, and a request for a BOI (non- probationary only). (6) Personnel Action form, 30 July 2012, shows the applicant’s duty status changed from permissive temporary duty to CCA, effective 26 July 2012. (7) Memorandum, Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notification of Initiation of Elimination, (Applicant), 5 September 2012, shows the applicant elected to submit a resignation. (8) Memorandum, Officer Evaluation Report Referral for (Applicant), from 2 September 2011 - 1 September 2012), 6 February 2013, shows the applicant was unable to sign this report because the applicant was in confinement. (9) Memorandum, Resignation in Lieu of Elimination Case (Applicant), 28 March 2013, shows the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Army Review Boards) did not accept the applicant’s resignation that was conditioned upon receiving no less than a general under honorable conditions discharge. It was directed that the case be returned to the GOSCA and a BOI authorized to recommend an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service be conducted unless the applicant tendered an unconditional resignation in lieu of elimination. (10) Officer elimination BOI, 28 August 2013, shows: (a) The board, having carefully considered the evidence before it, found the allegation of physically assaulting the applicant’s pregnant spouse on divers occasions was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. (b) The board recommended the applicant be separated from the U.S. Army with an under other than honorable characterization of service. (11) Memorandum, Legal Review of Officer Elimination of (Applicant), 3 October 2013, shows the findings of the board were supported by the evidence and the findings constituted appropriate reasons for elimination pursuant to AR 600-8-24. The recommendation was consistent with the findings. It was recommended to adopt the findings and recommendations of the board and forward the case to the Secretary of the Army or their designee. The board was found legally sufficient. (12) Memorandum, Recommendation of Disposition for Elimination (Applicant), 10 October 2013, shows after review of the BOI’s findings and recommendations, the GOSCA recommended that the applicant be eliminated in accordance with AR 600-8-24, with a characterization of other than honorable conditions. (13) Army Board of Review for Eliminations, 12 November 2013, recommended the applicant be eliminated from the U.S. Army with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service because the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant physically assaulted the applicant’s pregnant spouse on divers occasions; threatened the applicant’s pregnant wife with a weapon on divers occasion; and committed conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the above referenced items. (14) Memorandum, Officer Elimination Case, 22 January 2014, shows the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Army Review Boards) approved the BOI and the Department of the Army Board of Review for Eliminations recommendations to involuntarily eliminate the applicant from the U.S. Army based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction (AR 600-8-24, para 4-2b), with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 1 year, 6 months, and 11 days (CCA, 26 July 2012 – 5 February 2014) / Released from Civil Authorities j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: (a) Psychologist Letter, 15 March 2012, showing the applicant was experiencing anxiety, depression, and clinical level PTSD symptoms. (b) Memorandum for Record, 15 March 2012, showing the applicant was originally seen by Behavioral Health, Evans Army Community Hospital, on 13 January after being released from a 48 hour stay at the Criminal Justice Center in Colorado Springs for domestic violence issues with spouse. The applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD. Service member was suffering from PTSD mostly around incidents that occurred during the applicant’s first deployment what was signed as opportune leader. (c) Sanity and Mental Condition Examination, 5 December 2012, showing the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and alcohol abuse in remission. (2) AMHRR Listed: (a) Report of Mental Status Evaluation, 30 January 2012, shows the applicant required temporary duty limitations and likely to require behavioral health treatment to be restored to full duty. The applicant required further examination or testing to finalize diagnosis and recommendations. The applicant was diagnosed with anxiety disorder not otherwise specified; rule out PTSD; and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. It was recommended that the applicant have restricted access to or disarm weapons and ammunition, prohibited use of alcohol, and increased supervision. Recommended further evaluation to rule out PTSD. (b) Health Record, Behavioral Health, 3 February 2012, shows the applicant had a psychiatric follow up. The applicant’s clinical diagnosis was partner relational problem, legal problem, anxiety not otherwise specified, and rule out PTSD. The applicant was temporarily non deployable due to new psychiatric medications. (c) Health Record, Behavioral Health, 14 February 2012, shows current problems were chronic PTSD, occupational problem, anxiety disorder not otherwise specified, and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. (d) Health Record, Behavioral Health, 21 February 2012, shows current problems were chronic PTSD, other specified family circumstances, occupational problem, anxiety disorder not otherwise specified, and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The applicant would continue with off post psychologist for ongoing weekly individual treatment. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; applicant self-authored letter; psychologist Letter; Memorandum for Record for Behavioral Health; Sanity and Mental Condition Examination. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Master's Degree in Business Administration in 2016 and graduated with honors. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 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 4-20a (previously 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 (3) Apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (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 “JNC” 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. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. a. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant’s AMHRR, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. b. The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the applicant served 7 years, 6 months, and 27 days during which the applicant served 2 years, 10 months, and 20 days of foreign service between serving two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. On 26 July 2012, the GOSCA initiated a show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, subparagraphs 4- 2b (5) and (8), for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, subparagraphs 4-2b (5) and (8), due to personal acts of misconduct and conduct unbecoming of an officer. On 26 July 2012, the applicant was confined with civilian authorities. An Officer Elimination BOI conducted on 28 August 2013 and an Army Board of Review for Eliminations conducted on 12 November 2013, both recommended the applicant be separated with an under other than honorable characterization of service for physically assaulting the applicant’s pregnant spouse on divers occasions. On 22 January 2014, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Army Review Boards) eliminated the applicant from the U.S. Army based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction (AR 600-8-24, para 4-2b), with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. c. The applicant requests a change to the narrative reason. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24 with a under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Unacceptable Conduct,” and the separation code is “JNC.” AR 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, SPD Codes. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. d. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant’s PTSD, depression, and anxiety from several combat tours triggered the domestic event that led to the discharge. The applicant provided a psychologist letter, 15 March 2012, showing the applicant was experiencing anxiety, depression, and clinical level PTSD symptoms. Memorandum for Record, 15 March 2012, showing the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD. Service member was suffering from PTSD mostly around incidents that occurred during the applicant’s first deployment what was signed as opportune leader. Also, Sanity and Mental Condition Examination, 5 December 2012, showing the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and alcohol abuse in remission. e. Published Department of Defense guidance indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board’s statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant’s petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 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: the applicant was diagnosed in-service with Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and PTSD for a short period of time. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed in-service with Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and PTSD for a short period of time. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant had a sanity evaluation that acknowledged while trauma symptoms may have existed at the time of the misconduct, it did not amount to mental disease or defect, and he was culpable for the misconduct. Moreover, documentation outlines purposeful, thought-out actions over time with attempts to divert detection via recanting IPV and relocating his wife so she couldn’t testify which do not align with PTSD. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s with Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – unacceptable conduct of physical assault and IPV – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention: The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant’s PTSD, depression, and anxiety from several combat tours triggered the domestic event that led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s medical diagnoses were not mitigating and therefore the discharge was proper and equitable. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the 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 not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the physical assault or IPV offenses. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s conduct fell below that level of satisfactory service warranting a General discharge or meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20200009772 1