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 discharge was inequitable and improper. The discharge was inequitable because it was based on one sole incident in more than eight years of service. Before the incident, the applicant was Medevac’d in June 2014 from Bahrain because of post-traumatic stress disorder PTSD)/bipolar disorder related issues and hospitalized for two months upon arriving in the United States. In September 2014, shortly after the applicant’s release from Brooks Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, the applicant was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 4th Battalion, Field Artillery, Fort Sill. The following month, in October, the applicant had the incident, which involved the applicant’s spouse and child. After being demoted from sergeant to specialist, the unit decided to chapter the applicant out of the service with a general (under honorable conditions) on the day of the applicant’s expiration term of service (ETS). The applicant completed the required counseling. The characterization of the discharge is improper because the applicant’s chapter paperwork was not signed by the post commander before the applicant signed out on 17 June 2015. The applicant requests the Board verify the chapter paperwork. The applicant cleared base with no paperwork at the time of the applicant’s discharge. The Army Discharge Board did not properly analyze and consider the applicant’s behavioral health and assumed the applicant could understand and participate in the proceedings and differentiate between right and wrong, sometime after the incident, not during the time it actually occurred. The ADRB did not consider the prior events and affirmed the decision based on the assumption the diagnoses listed in the Case Report and Directive (CRD), items 2 and 4j, did not qualify for an adequate medical and behavioral condition before the incident, dismissing everything else to support the decision. As someone committed to furthering the education and becoming a voice for fellow veterans, the applicant requests the applicant’s aspirations be taken into consideration. The applicant has become a citizen committed to making a difference and has earned a bachelor’s degree in psychology. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 19 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 17 June 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 January 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 8 November 2014, the applicant unlawfully struck the applicant’s child A. S. On 9 November 2014, the applicant unlawfully grabbed the ear of and struck the applicant’s spouse A. S. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The battalion and brigade commanders recommended under other than honorable conditions. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 23 January 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 23 January 2015, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions). On 27 February 2015, the separation authority denied the conditional waiver and referred the case to an administrative separation board. On 2 April 2015, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of rights. On 5 June 2015, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 June 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 April 2009 / 6 years / The applicant extended the most recent enlistment by a period of 7 months on 5 June 2014, giving the applicant a new ETS of: 8 November 2015. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 32 / Associate’s Degree / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 91H20, Track Vehicle Repairer and 63H20 H8, Tracked Vehicle Mechanic / 8 years, 7 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 9 November 2006 – 8 April 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Bahrain (13 January 2014 – 21 June 2014); Iraq (10 June 2008 – 14 September 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, ARCOM-2, AAM-3, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: 1 February 2013 – 31 January 2014 / Among the Best 1 February 2014 – 23 August 2014 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CID Report of Investigation - Final, dated 19 November 2014, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offenses of Assault and Assault on a Child when the applicant struck S. in the head and S. (3 years old) on the face (8 and 9 November 2014). Field Grade Article 15, dated 9 December 2014, for unlawfully striking S. on the left side of the face with the hand (8 November 2014) and unlawfully grabbing the ear of and striking A. S. on the right side of the head with the hand (9 November 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Memorandum, subject: No Contact Order, dated 11 March 2015, reflects the applicant’s immediate commander ordered the applicant to have no contact with the applicant’s spouse, applicant’s child, or the spouse’s family. Formal AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations, dated 5 June 2015, reflects the administrative separation board found the reasons for separation, the applicant on 8 November 2014, unlawfully struck the applicant’s child, A. S. and on 9 November 2014, unlawfully grabbed the ear and struck the applicant’s spouse, A. S., were supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The board recommended general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. Three Developmental Counseling Forms for overall deficient behavior, referral to mental health services, favorable actions being suspended because of pending separation, and being flagged because of pending investigation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 16 June 2014, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with Bipolar I, most recent, manic severe without psychotic features. Initial Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 1 December 2015, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and bipolar I disorder Department of Veterans (VA) letter, dated 17 March 2016, reflecting the applicant was in treatment with the VA. The applicant had been rated 90 percent service-connected disabled for various conditions, including 70 percent for PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 October 2014, reflects the applicant 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 mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). The applicant was diagnosed with: Depression. Physical Profile (temporary), dated 20 November 2014, reflects the applicant had the following medical condition: Irritability. The profile expired on 18 February 2015. Report of Medical History, dated 19 December 2014, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Hospitalized for depression in June and November 2014. The applicant was deployed at the time and admitted to Bahrain Hospital; medevacked to Fort Sam Houston and discharged in late August 2014. The applicant was admitted in Southwestern Medical Center Behavioral Health on 12 November 2014 and discharged on 20 November 2014. The applicant had weekly follow-ups for three weeks. Report of Medical Examination, dated 19 December 2014, the examining medical physician noted in the summary of defects and diagnoses section: Depression. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; DD Form 293; medical records; military service records; Bachelor’s Degree Diploma; and a VA letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant attained a Bachelor of Science in Psychology; is committed to becoming a voice for fellow veterans; and being a citizen committed to making a difference. 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’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends PTSD and bipolar I disorder affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant provided medical documents indicating diagnoses of PTSD and bipolar I disorder. The VA rated the applicant as 90 percent service-connected disabled for various conditions, including 70 percent for PTSD. The AMHRR shows the applicant was hospitalized for depression while on active duty. The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 30 October 2014, which reflects 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 mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). The applicant was diagnosed with: Depression. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. 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 the discharge was improper because the applicant signed out of the service on 17 June 2015, before the separation authority signed the separation documents. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the separation authority approved the separation on 15 June 2015 and the applicant was discharged on 17 June 2015. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends being discharged on the applicant’s ETS date. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the applicant was discharged on 17 June 2015. The applicant reenlisted on 8 April 2009 for six years and extended the enlistment by a period of seven months, giving the applicant an ETS date of 18 November 2015. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends attaining a Bachelor of Science in Psychology; being committed to becoming a voice for fellow veterans; and being a citizen committed to making a difference. 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 contends the Army Discharge Review Board, Decision Number AR20160007528, did not properly analyze and consider the applicant’s behavioral health. The applicant received a ‘de novo’ review as part of the Kennedy v. McCarthy Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, certified on April 26, 2021, wherein the board applied the Department of Defense guidance regarding liberal consideration of possible mitigating factors, such as PTSD and depression, and other related mental health conditions. 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, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Depression, TBI, 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 an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Depression, and TBI. Applicant is also service connected by the VA for PTSD to include Bipolar Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Depression, and TBI. Applicant is also service connected by the VA for PTSD to include Bipolar Disorder. While there is evidence of several potentially mitigating BH conditions, it is the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor that none of applicant’s BH conditions provide mitigation for the domestic abuse that led to applicant’s separation. There is no natural sequela between an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Depression, or TBI and domestic abuse. And while increased aggression can be associated with Bipolar Disorder during an acutely manic phase, the medical record provides evidence that applicant was not in a Bipolar manic phase at the time of the incident. Specifically, it is documented that applicant was using rationale thought inconsistent with a manic episode when expressed a desire for spouse not to take the child out of the home due to visible marks on the face. Therefore, there is no medical mitigation. (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 Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Depression, TBI, and PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – unlawfully striking of applicant’s spouse and child – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD and bipolar I disorder affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Depression, TBI, and PTSD outweighed the unlawful striking of applicant’s spouse and child due to there being no natural sequela between the nature of the misconduct and the applicant’s BH conditions. (2) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and noted 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 Board found insufficient evidence in the AMHRR, and in the evidence provided by the applicant, of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command such that rebuts the presumption of government regularity. Accordingly, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends the discharge was improper because the applicant signed out of the service on 17 June 2015, before the separation authority signed the separation documents. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the separation authority approved the separation on 15 June 2015 and the applicant was discharged on 17 June 2015. The Board considered this contention and found insufficient evidence in the AMHRR, and in the evidence provided by the applicant, of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command such that rebuts the presumption of government regularity. Accordingly, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends being discharged on the applicant’s ETS date. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the applicant was discharged on 17 June 2015. The applicant reenlisted on 8 April 2009 for six years and extended the enlistment by a period of seven months, giving the applicant an ETS date of 18 November 2015. The Board considered this contention and found insufficient evidence in the AMHRR, and in the evidence provided by the applicant, of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command such that rebuts the presumption of government regularity. Accordingly, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable. (5) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. 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 domestic abuse, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation (6) The applicant contends attaining a Bachelor of Science in Psychology; being committed to becoming a voice for fellow veterans; and being a citizen committed to making a difference. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service conduct does not outweigh the nature and severity of the applicant’s misconduct. (7) The applicant contends the Army Discharge Review Board, Decision Number AR20160007528, did not properly analyze and consider the applicant’s behavioral health. The applicant received a ‘de novo’ review as part of the Kennedy v. McCarthy Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, certified on April 26, 2021, wherein the Board applied the Department of Defense guidance regarding liberal consideration of possible mitigating factors, to include BH conditions. Ultimately, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Depression, TBI, and PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation. 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 Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Depression, TBI, and PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – unlawfully striking of applicant’s spouse and child. The Board further considered the applicant’s contentions of impropriety and inequity and determined there was insufficient evidence in the AMHRR, and in the evidence provided by the applicant, of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command such that rebuts the presumption of government regularity. 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 AR20210001973 1