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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the evidence supports the separation and demotion, and its severe effects, were unfair and unjust, including the circumstances in which they occurred. The identified issues are relevant to the separation’s fairness and justice. The request to upgrade; restore the rank to E-4; amend the narrative reason and reentry code, and other associated reliefs within the Board’s authority and/or referral to sources of applicable relief are supported by evidence. The inequitable and unjust separation has damaged the applicant financially and professionally, making professional employment impossible to obtain. The four primary issues are: whether the discharge was reasonable and fair in characterizing the service as general (under honorable conditions); whether the alleged infractions occurred as charged and were reasonable basis for the punitive results; whether the infractions merited the penalties imposed in the context of the facts and documented circumstances provided; and whether facts and circumstances beyond the applicant’s control exacerbated the mental and physical health conditions. The seriousness ascribed to the isolated or cumulative behavior for the maximum punishment received is mitigated by the unknown facts and circumstances, at the time. Despite nearly four years of problem-free service, series of minor infractions resulting in counseling and Article 15 punishments led to an immediate discharge. The pattern of misconduct was unjust and unreasonable, regardless of the nature and timing of the contributing factors. The incidents of inappropriate behavior do not reflect the applicant’s professionalism or character. The infractions occurred when the applicant became depersonalized and demotivated to the point of despair and temporarily losing control of the emotions. The applicant served respectfully and responsibly for 95 percent of the 52 months of obligated service; spent 70 percent of the time attempting to resolve assignment issues while at WAAF (Wiesbaden Army Airfield, Germany); and personal and medical issues exacerbated the deteriorating mental state. The chain of command made no attempt to understand the situation and the effects on the worsening mental state or assist in fixing the problems demonstrated by the outbursts of frustration. When the applicant sought medical treatment for lack of sleep and exhaustion, the Army psychiatrist prescribed Fluoxetine for the depression diagnosis. PTSD was never discussed, despite research clearly demonstrates a link between PTSD and mood/behavior. Because of the complicated medical history, the Army medical staff had the opportunity to identify and treat the applicant for PTSD, instead the symptoms were casually dismissed and treated with a medication linked to suicidal ideation. The civilian physicians has since diagnosed and treated the applicant for “complex PTSD.” After serving so well in Basic, DLI, and Intel training, at WAAF, the applicant grew isolated and hopeless after months of commuting to Paris to be with a best friend of 18 years, who died agonizingly from cancer. The applicant’s life rapidly slipped downhill. Although referred to an anger management class in January 2012, the class was not available until March 2012, by which time the decision for separation had already been made, and the exemplary behavior in the interim was irrelevant. Even though rehabilitation is regarded as core principle of the military justice system, there was no possibility for rehabilitation. The applicant is always plagued by the disgrace of the involuntary separation. The applicant further details the contentions in two separate allied self-authored statements provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 20 July 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 August 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 July 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 22 March 2012, the applicant received a Field Grade Article 15 for five counts of disrespecting a noncommissioned officer and for assault, and on 23 May 2012, the applicant received a Company Grade Article 15 for disrespecting a noncommissioned officer. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 and 17 July 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 August 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 April 2008 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / Bachelor’s Degree / 131 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 35P1L, Cryptologic Linguist / 4 years, 4 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Three Developmental Counseling Forms for disrespecting an NCO on two separate occasions and assaulting a Soldier. FG Article 15, dated 28 March 2012, for being disrespectful in deportment towards an NCO on three separate occasions on 6 February 2012; disobeying an NCO on 6 February 2012; assaulting an NCO on 15 March 2012; being disrespectful in language towards an NCO on 15 March 2012; and assaulting SPC R. K. G. on 19 January 2012. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $689 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. CG Article 15, dated 23 May 2012, for disobeying an NCO on 10 April 2012. The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $347 pay (suspended), and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Amen Clinics, Inc. Adult Evaluation Report (at page 286), dated 17 October 2012, reflects the applicant diagnoses as “Axis I” Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical History, dated 11 April 2012, the applicant noted behavioral health issues and the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Anxiety with symptoms. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and self-authored statement with listed attachments. Additional Evidence: Self-authored letter with appointment note. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has served as substitute teacher; credentialed to tutor students and teach foreign languages; volunteered to assist local NGO; was trained as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) in Maryland and served a regular member of the squad; and is currently, in the second year at the Inter American University School of Optometry in Bayamon, PR, studying for a Doctor of Optometry 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 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Pattern of Misconduct,” and the separation code is “JKA.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates 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, 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 desires to rejoin the Military Service and serve as a US Army Optometrist. 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. The applicant contends the rank to E-4 should be restored. The applicant’s request 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. The applicant contends the separation and demotion were unfair and unjust, and the pattern of misconduct was unreasonable despite the nature and time of the contributing factors. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the inequitable and unjust discharge has ruined the applicant financially and made professional employment impossible to obtain. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends the seriousness ascribed to the isolated or cumulative behavior is mitigated by the unknown facts and circumstances. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends nearly four years of problem-free, but series of minor infractions resulting in counseling and Article 15 punishments, led to an immediate discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends serving respectfully and responsibly for 95 percent of the obligated service, including while at Basic, DLI, and intel training. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends personal and medical issues exacerbated the deteriorating mental health, being diagnosed and treated for depression by an Army Psychiatrist, and subsequently, being diagnosed and treated for “complex PTSD” by civilian physicians. The applicant provided medical documents indicating an Axis I diagnoses of PTSD and ADHD, and prescribed treatment and medication. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of a mental status or behavioral health evaluation but contains a Report of Medical History which shows the medical examiner indicating anxiety with symptoms. The applicant contends the chain of command made no attempt to understand the situation and the effects on the worsening mental state or assist in fixing the problems demonstrated by the outbursts of frustration. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling and the imposition of non-judicial punishments. The applicant contends although rehabilitation is regarded as core principle of the military justice system, there was no possibility for rehabilitation. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-17d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the separation authority may waive the rehabilitative requirements in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate such a transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. The applicant contends being a second-year student at the Inter American University School of Optometry in Bayamon, PR, studying for a Doctor of Optometry degree. 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. 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: Depression, Anxiety, PTSD. (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 Depression and Anxiety. Applicant's post service diagnosis of PTSD is associated with childhood traumas with no evidence of exacerbation by military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there is evidence of potentially mitigating BH conditions. The applicant was diagnosed in service with Depression and Anxiety. Shortly after discharge from the service, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD by a civilian provider. While PTSD has a nexus with difficulty with authority and can mitigate disrespect, in this applicant’s case, the PTSD is associated with childhood traumas with no evidence of exacerbation by military service. Because the applicant’s PTSD is associated with pre-service childhood traumas with no evidence of exacerbation by military service, it is not a mitigating condition in applicant’s case. With regards to applicant’s in service diagnoses of Depression and Anxiety, there is no natural sequela between Depression/Anxiety and the nature of the multiple instances of disrespect, or assault. There is no evidence that either of these conditions contributed to the misconduct that led to separation. Therefore, applicant’s BH conditions do not provide any medical mitigation for the basis of his separation. (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 Depression, Anxiety, PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – multiple instances of disrespect, and assault – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant was properly separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Pattern of Misconduct,” and the separation code is JKA, and the Board found that they accurately reflect the applicant’s service as well as circumstances leading to separation. After a review of the totality of the record, the Board determined there are insufficient factors contained in the applicant’s file that warrant deviation. (2) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service and serve as a US Army Optometrist. The Board considered this contention and voted to maintain the RE-code at 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. (3) The applicant contends the rank to E-4 should be restored. The Board determined that the applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. (4) The applicant contends the separation and demotion were unfair and unjust, and the pattern of misconduct was unreasonable despite the nature and time of the contributing factors. The Board considered this contention and the totality of the record, and determined there is insufficient evidence to support the contention of unfair and unjust treatment leading to separation, and that the applicant’s assertion alone does not outweigh the nature and severity of the applicant’s offenses. (5) The applicant contends the inequitable and unjust discharge has ruined the applicant financially and made professional employment impossible to obtain. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (6) The applicant contends the seriousness ascribed to the isolated or cumulative behavior is mitigated by the unknown facts and circumstances. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant did not provide evidence of any facts or circumstances such that provide mitigation for the offenses of multiple instances of disrespect, and assault, and as such the discharge is proper and equitable. (7) The applicant contends nearly four years of problem-free, but series of minor infractions resulting in counseling and Article 15 punishments, led to an immediate discharge, in spite of serving respectfully and responsibly for 95 percent of the obligated service, including while at Basic, DLI, and intel training. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the nature and severity of the applicant’s misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (8) The applicant contends personal and medical issues exacerbated the deteriorating mental health, being diagnosed and treated for depression by an Army Psychiatrist, and subsequently, being diagnosed and treated for “complex PTSD” by civilian physicians. The Board considered the applicant’s BH conditions of Depression, Anxiety, PTSD, however, the Board determined that the applicant’s PTSD is not service-connected, and the remaining conditions do not outweigh the applicant’s basis for separation as there is no natural sequela between Depression/Anxiety and the misconduct of nature of the multiple instances of disrespect, or assault. (9) The applicant contends the chain of command made no attempt to understand the situation and the effects on the worsening mental state or assist in fixing the problems demonstrated by the outbursts of frustration. The Board considered this contention as well as multiple counseling statements addressing the applicant’s conduct, and determined the applicant’s BH conditions did not contribute to the applicant’s misconduct, and there is insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command such that support the applicant’s assertion. (10) The applicant contends although rehabilitation is regarded as core principle of the military justice system, there was no possibility for rehabilitation. The Board considered this contention as well as multiple counseling statements addressing the applicant’s conduct and determined there is insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command such that support the applicant’s assertion. (11) The applicant contends being a second-year student at the Inter American University School of Optometry, studying for a Doctor of Optometry degree. The Board consider the applicant’s post-service conduct and determined that it does not outweigh the misconduct due to the nature of the unmitigated offenses. 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, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Depression, Anxiety, PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – multiple instances of disrespect, and assault. The Board further considered the applicant’s contentions of inequity and impropriety and determined there was insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the Command. 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, 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 AR20210001746 1