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 and a RE-code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, being 90 days away from ETS and was not allowed to reach because the company commander and first sergeant targeted the applicant. The applicant made several attempts to be removed from the chain of command because of being purposely targeted for involuntary separation. The applicant had numerous NCO’s speak on the applicant’s behalf stating the applicant had been unjustly targeted; however, the company commander kept it at the company level so they could have ultimate say over UCMJ. The applicant served the country faithfully in Iraq and earned a good conduct medal. The applicant was given positive reviews on their behavior by various supervisors and did not warrant a general discharge or a pattern of misconduct narrative reason for separation. The applicant was not aware they suffered from TBI from a Humvee accident and PTSD from their service in Iraq. Being discharged 90 days before the ETS caused further depression and episodes. The applicant has since received continuous treatment for these issues, which caused the loss of the applicant’s career and family. The applicant has become a productive member of society, obtained a college degree, served as a law enforcement officer, and works for the DOD as a civilian supervisor with a security clearance. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 23 May 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: 31 August 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 June 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 24 February 2006, the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty; On or about 17 February 2006, the applicant was disorderly, which was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces; On or about 17 February 2006, the applicant assaulted PFC R.; On or about 14 February 2006, the applicant was disrespectful in deportment towards SSG S.; On or about 14 February 2006, the applicant was disrespectful in language towards SGT O.; On or about 14 February 2006, the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty; On or about 14 February 2006, the applicant was derelict in the performance of duty; On or about 8 February, the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty; On or about 12 December 2005, the applicant assaulted PV2 D.; On or about 7 September 2005, the applicant falsified an official document; On or about 8 August 2005, the applicant was disrespectful in deportment towards SGT A.; On or about 6 July 2005, the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty; On or about 16 June 2005, the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty; On or about 14 June 2005, the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty; On or about 14 June 2005, the applicant made a false official statement; On or about 29 May 2005, the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty; On Or about 29 April 2005, the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty; On or about 4 August 2004, the applicant damaged government property; On or about 4 August 2004, the applicant wrongfully appropriated government property; On or about 3 July 2004, the applicant was disorderly which was of nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces; and, On or about 10 April 2004, the applicant committed assault consummated with a battery. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 June 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 October 2002 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / High School Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 4 years, 11 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 30 April 2001 – 18 September 2001 / NIF IADT, 19 September 2001 – 21 February 2002 / UNC USAR, 22 February 2002 – 15 October 2002 / NIF e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (5 March 2003 – 4 March 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM-2, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 12 December 2005, an investigation by MPI revealed the applicant and PV2 D. were involved in a verbal altercation, which escalated into a physical when the applicant pinned PV2 D. against the wall and began applying pressure to the clavicle with the hands. Further investigation revealed PV2 D. then bit/kicked the applicant and struck the applicant with an open hand. PV2 D. was advised of legal rights, which PV2 D. waived and rendered a sworn statement wherein PV2 D. admitted to the above listed offense. PV2 D. was further processed and released to the unit. The applicant was apprehended and transported to the PMO for processing. The applicant was advised of legal rights, which the applicant invoked declining to make a statement. The applicant was processed and later released to the unit. CG Article 15, dated 7 November 2005, for with intent to defraud, falsely alter a certain writing in the following words and figures, to wit: DD Form 689, Individual Sick Slip by adding “48 hrs quarters starting on 8 September” on or about 7 September 2005. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, suspended; forfeiture of $323 pay per month; and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 9 January 2006, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 7 November 2005, was vacated for: Article 128, on or about 12 December 2005, the applicant unlawfully squeezed PV2 D.’s arms and pushed the thumbs into PV2 D’s. clavicle while applying pressure with the hands. CG Article 15, dated 2 February 2006, for unlawfully squeezed PV2 D.’s arms and pushed the thumbs into PV2 D.’s clavicle while applying pressure with the hands on or about 12 December 2005. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $288 with extra duty and restriction for 14 days. FG Article 15, dated 14 March 2006, for failing to go at the appointed time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 8 February 2006; was derelict in the performance of duties by culpable inefficiency failed to report back to the place of duty in a timely manner on or about 14 February 2016; failed to go to at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 14 February 2006; was disrespectful in language towards SGT O. on or about 14 February 2006; was disrespectful in deportment and language towards SSG S. on or about 14 February 2006; unlawfully struck PFC R. in the face with the hands on or about 17 February 2006; and was disorderly which was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces on or about 17 February 2006. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $640 pay per month for two months (suspended) with extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Medical document, undated, reflects active problems: depression, anxiety, chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain injury with no loss of consciousness. (2) AMHRR Listed: Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 March 2006, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with a clear-thinking process and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with Axis I: `Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder. It was noted symptoms for PTSD were significant post-deployment, and have decreased over time, yet remain to an extent. Soldier reported drinking during the weekend (a 12 pack in one sitting), may be drinking to lesser extent during the week in the evening. Soldier’s symptoms of depression, anxiety, increased anger and startle, increased alcohol consumption, etc., may all be explained by PTSD. The applicant denied current suicidal ideations. While the Soldier denies homicidal thoughts as well, the applicant is frustrated and may act out aggressively in the place of work. Report of Medical History, dated 5 April 2006, the applicant references behavioral health issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 293; DA Form 4856; college transcript; ARBA memorandum for record; medical document. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has become a productive member of society, obtained a college degree, served as a law enforcement officer, and works for the DOD as a civilian supervisor with a security clearance. 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-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. 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. RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years of active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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 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 contends good service, including a combat tour. The applicant contends being targeted by the company commander and first sergeant. The applicant made several attempts to be removed from the chain of command. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. 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 not being aware of suffering from TBI and PTSD. The applicant provided a copy of Medical document, undated, which reflects active problems: depression, anxiety, chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain injury with no loss of consciousness. The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation, which supports a diagnosis of in-service PTSD. The AMHRR contains a Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 March 2006, which reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with a clear-thinking process and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with Axis I: `Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It was noted symptoms for PTSD were significant post-deployment, and have decreased over time, yet remain to an extent. Soldier reported drinking during the weekend (a 12 pack in one sitting), may be drinking to lesser extent during the week in the evening. Soldier’s symptoms of depression, anxiety, increased anger and startle, increased alcohol consumption, etc., may all be explained by PTSD. The applicant denied current suicidal ideations. While the Soldier denies homicidal thoughts as well, the applicant is frustrated and may act out aggressively in the place of work. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant has become a productive member of society, obtained a college degree, served as a law enforcement officer, and works for the DOD as a civilian supervisor with a security clearance. 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: PTSD and TBI. Additionally, the applicant asserts depression and anxiety, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant is service connected for PTSD and records reference history of TBI sustained on Active Duty. (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 PTSD mitigates the applicant’s offenses of failures to report (and associated dereliction of duty infractions) and minor disrespect and disorderly behavior (non- assaultive/physical) as there is a nexus between PTSD and irritability and distrust/problematic interactions with authority figures and avoidance behavior. However, PTSD does not mitigate the applicant’s offenses of assaults, damage to and misappropriation of government property, falsifying an official record, making a false official statement, or assaults. The Board Medical Advisor also opined that the applicant’s TBI, depression, and anxiety do not mitigate any of the applicant’s misconduct as the record indicates that the applicant was not of such severity to impact the applicant’s cognition and judgment to a degree that affect the applicant’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to 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 mitigated the applicant’s offenses of failure to reports, disorderly conducts, disrespects to an NCO, and dereliction of duty, the applicant’s PTSD, TBI, anxiety, and depression did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses - assaults, damage to and misappropriation of government property, falsifying an official record, and making a false statement. 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 discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions). The Board found insufficient mitigating factors that would warrant an upgrade and as such, the discharge is proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record and 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. The applicant’s pattern of misconduct diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (3) The applicant contends being targeted by the company commander and first sergeant. The applicant made several attempts to be removed from the chain of command. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion, however the Board determined that there is insufficient evidence in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board determined that the assertion alone did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses - assaults, damage to government property, misappropriation of government property, falsifying an official record, and making a false statement due to the frequency and nature of the offenses. (4) The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The Board considered this contention and voted to maintain the RE-code at RE-3, which is a waiverable 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. (5) The applicant contends not being aware of suffering from TBI and PTSD. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that, while the applicant’s PTSD mitigated the applicant’s offenses of failure to reports, disorderly conducts, disrespects to an NCO, and dereliction of duty, the applicant’s PTSD, TBI, anxiety, and depression did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses - assaults, damage to government property, misappropriation of government property, falsifying an official record, and making a false statement. After considering the totality of the record, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (6) The applicant has become a productive member of society, obtained a college degree, served as a law enforcement officer, and works for the DOD as a civilian supervisor with a security clearance. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service conduct does not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses - assaults, damage to and misappropriation of government property, falsifying an official record, and making a false statement. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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, while the applicant’s PTSD mitigated the applicant’s offenses of failure to reports, disorderly conducts, disrespects to an NCO, and dereliction of duty, the applicant’s PTSD/TBI did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses - assaults, damage to and misappropriation of government property, falsifying an official record, and making a false statement. The Board also considered the applicant’s contentions of inequity and impropriety and determined there was insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the separation authority. 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 General Discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of 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 AR20210001951 1