1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable conditions. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the entire discharge procedure was unjust, and the characterization and narrative reason need to be upgraded and changed. During the same period, the applicant’s first sergeant came under investigation for inappropriate conduct with female Soldiers. Three Soldiers who went to the same promotion board the applicant attended: one was allowed to exit the military without reason; the second had altered their own promotion packet and was released for a mental condition; and them self. The applicant was nowhere near the promotion packet preparation. The applicant was pulled in and placed under investigation and their medical board paperwork was pulled. Right after the promotion board, the applicant was sexually assaulted by the same first sergeant. After disclosing the assault to their section sergeant, the applicant was transferred to another unit. The applicant’s request for counsel from a different installation was denied, so as an E-5 with five children, they hired a civilian lawyer. When the applicant’s life became difficult and the applicant was refused behavioral health assistance, the applicant waived the separation board and requested to be discharged. The applicant was broken from the assault without any mental or medical assistance. Documentary evidence will show the conflicts between the commanders and the applicant was punished twice for the same action. It has taken the applicant six years since the discharge, with medical treatment (all documented) and therapy, to continue with life. The applicant returned to school, received a bachelor’s degree, and is now in the process of attaining a master’s degree and has applied to continue with a doctorate. The applicant served honorably and with the unjust acts conducted by the JAG officers at Fort Sill, the applicant asks to be reinstated within the US Armed Forces or given a characterization of an honorable discharge. The applicant also desires to complete their military service. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 3 August 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 23 January 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 August 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between 5 November 2007 and 31 January 2008, with intent to defraud, the applicant wrongfully submitted a DA Form 705, Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard, indicating a total score of 290 points and a DA Form 5790-R, Record Firing Scorecard, scaled target alternate course, indicating a hit count of 39 out of 40, which were, as they applicant well knew, falsely made. Between 1 January 2008 and 31 January 2008, with intent to deceive, the applicant wrongfully submitted an official record, DA Form 3355, Promotion Point Worksheet, which was false in that the DA Form 705 and A Form 5790-R, upon which the DA Form 3355 relies, were, as the applicant then well knew, falsely made. On 28 February 2008, the applicant agreed to answer questions from the investigating officer, CPT F. The applicant’s answer to the question, “How did you find out that your promotion packet was pulled?” was, “I decline to answer this question [at] this time. We are taught as NCO’s to be loyal to those whom we serve. And to know our Soldiers and place their [sic] needs about my own. I will not go against the values that true leaders promote, the one’s [sic] that really care about the well being of their [sic] Soldiers because there are not many left.” The applicant behaved disrespectfully towards CPT F., in the answer to the question. The applicant was also derelict of their duties to answer the question. In the same statement to CPT F., the applicant answered that the applicant took more than one APFT in October 2007 and scored a 290 during one of the APFT’s; and that the applicant scored 39 on one of their weapon qualifications. These official statements were false and then known to the applicant to be false. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 September 2008 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 4 September 2008, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than an honorable discharge. On 12 September 2008, the applicant’s conditional waiver was disapproved, and the case remained referred to an administrative separation board as previously ordered. The applicant’s Case Separation File is void of any administrative separation board proceedings. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 June 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 30 / three years college / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 27D30, Paralegal Specialist / 6 years, 5 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 26 April 1996 – 31 May 1997 / UNC (Break in Service) ARNG, 12 March 1999 – 15 July 1999 / UNC (Break in Service) ARNG, 16 January 2004 – 24 February 2004 / NA IADT, 25 February 2004 – 24 July 2004 / UNC ARNG, 25 July 2004 – 21 July 2005 / HD RA, 22 July 2005 – 16 November 2005 / HD ARNG, 17 November 2005 – 17 January 2006 / HD RA, 12 January 2006 – 14 May 2007 / HD RA, 15 May 2007 – 11 June 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 1 March 2007 – 30 June 2007 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: DA Form 5790-R, Record Firing Score Card Scaled Target Alternate Course, dated 1 October 2007, reflects the applicant had 39 hits. DA Form 705, Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard, dated 19 October 2007 reflects the applicant scored 100 points for pushups, 90 points for sit-ups, and 100 points for the two-mile run. Temporary Physical Profile reflects the applicant was on a profile that was extended from 8 September 2007 until 1 November 2007. Memorandum, dated 14 April 2008, Subject: Findings and Recommendations Concerning 1596 Investigation into Allegations of Misconduct, rendered by the investigating officer (IO), provides the findings and recommendations into possible violations of Article 107, (UCMJ), making false official statements and procedural error relating to a promotion board on 6 November 2007. The IO found the applicant violated Article 123, UCMJ, for altering and/or forging official documents, and recommended they receive a FG Article 15 and be removed from their brigade position, and involuntarily separated them for serious misconduct. Memorandum, dated 19 May 2008, Subject: Legal Name Change, reflects the applicants name change was approved. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 22 May 2008, reflects the applicant was reprimanded for the 15-6 Investigation that was initiated on or about 26 February 2008, with the allegation of altering their DA Form 5790-R (Weapons Qualification Card) and DA Form 705 (Physical Fitness Training Card). Memorandum, dated 24 October 2008, Subject: Request for Revocation of Enlistment, reflects the applicant was Flagged pursuant to AR 600-8-2, with an effective date of 27 February 2008. Memorandum, dated 28 October 2008, Subject: Defective/Unfulfilled Enlistment Contract pertaining to the applicant, reflects the Command’s request for reenlistment contract cancellation was approved, as the applicant was flagged and not qualified for reenlistment. U.S. Army Crime Records Center Memorandum, dated 15 March 2016, reflects they have no information pertinent to this case. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Assertion of Sexual Assault. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 14 January 2009, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with Anxiety Type and Depressed Mood but was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; DD Form 214; self-authored statement; copies of military personnel records. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has completed a bachelor’s degree and almost finished with a master’s degree. The applicant also applied to continue with a doctorate’s degree. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board) sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes, provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, Paragraph 12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Serious Offense),” and the separation code is “JKQ.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends three other Soldiers with similar offenses were provided relief and the same relief was not afforded to the applicant. The DODI 1332.28 provides each case must be decided on its individual merits, and a case-by-case basis, considering the unique facts and circumstances of the case. Additionally, when an applicant cites a prior decision of the ADRB, another agency, or a court, the applicant shall describe the specific principles and facts contained in the prior decision and explain the relevance of the cited matter to the applicant’s case. The Board is an independent body, not bound by prior decisions in its review of subsequent cases because no two cases present the same issues. The applicant contends a medical evaluation board was pulled when they were put under investigation. The Department of Defense disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation while undergoing a medical board. Appropriate regulations stipulate separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board and is subsequently processed for an involuntary administrative separation or referred to a court-martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended. The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or an administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical process is stopped, and the board report is filed in the member’s medical record. The applicant contends the applicant were sexually assaulted and after disclosing the assault to the applicant’s section sergeant, the applicant was transferred to another unit. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the applicant was punished twice for the same offense. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contents the applicant was broken after the assault and was refused behavioral health assistance. The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in-service adjustment disorder with Anxiety Type and Depressed Mood. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 14 January 2009, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the JAG officers conducted themselves unjustly. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends honorable service. The applicant contends the applicant returned to school, received a bachelor’s degree, is now in the process of attaining a master’s degree and has applied to continue with a doctorate. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. The applicant desires to rejoin Military Service or to be reinstated. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “3.” There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. Further, the applicant’s request to be reinstated does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, PTSD, and MST. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder, and applicant is service connected by the VA for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and PTSD related to MST. Service connection establishes that applicant's MDD, PTSD, and MST existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s PTSD/MST mitigates the applicant’s disrespect offense given the nexus between PTST/MST and difficulty with authority. However, while the applicant’s behavioral health conditions may have impacted her motivation for training, Adjustment Disorder, MDD, PTSD and MST do not mitigate the applicant’s offenses of submitting fraudulent records or making false official statements as there is no natural sequela with the applicant’s offenses and none of these conditions interfere with the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. (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, while the applicant’s PTSD/MST mitigate the applicant’s offense of disrespect, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, PTSD, and MST outweighed the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – submitting fraudulent records and making false official statements – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge is appropriate. The applicant did not present evidence of an experience or condition that convinced the Board the narrative reason warrants an upgrade. The applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends three other Soldiers with similar offenses were provided relief and the same relief was not afforded to the applicant. The Board considered this contention and determined there is insufficient evidence in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant to support this contention. The applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends a medical evaluation board was pulled when they were put under investigation. The Board considered this contention and determined there is no evidence in the record to support a medical evaluation board was pulled while applicant was under investigation. The applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends the applicant was sexually assaulted and after disclosing the assault to their section sergeant, the applicant was transferred to another unit. The applicant states the applicant was broken after the assault and was refused behavioral health assistance. The Board considered this contention and determined there is insufficient evidence in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant to support the applicant was refused behavioral health assistance. Further, the Board determined that the applicant’s PTSD/MST has no natural sequela with submitting fraudulent records or making false official statements since it does not interfere with the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. The applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. (5) The applicant contends the applicant was punished twice for the same offense. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant did not provide evidence of being punished twice nor does the applicant’s official record contain any evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the chain of command in support of this contention. The applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. (6) The applicant contends the JAG officers conducted themselves unjustly. The Board considered this contention and determined that a discharge upgrade is not warranted, as the applicant did not submit sufficient evidence to satisfy the applicant’s the burden of proof to support the applicant’s contention that the discharge was improper or inequitable. In light of the current evidence of record, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate. (7) The applicant contends honorable service. The Board considered the applicant’s six (6) years of service and the numerous awards received by the applicant but determined that an upgrade is not warranted as these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s submitting fraudulent records or making false official statements. (8) The applicant contends the applicant returned to school, received a bachelor’s degree, is now in the process of attaining a master’s degree and has applied to continue with a doctorate. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s return to school, receipt of a bachelor’s degree, processes to earn a master’s degree and continuing with a doctorate do not outweigh the misconduct based on the seriousness of the applicant’s offense of submitting fraudulent records or making false official statements. (9) The applicant desires to rejoin Military Service or to be reinstated. The Board considered this contention and voted to maintain the RE-code to a RE-3, which is a waivable code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes, if appropriate. 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, Major Depressive Disorder, PTSD, MST did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of submitting fraudulent records or making false official statements. 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 GD was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to HD. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as 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 AR20210001742 1