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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, there were extraneous circumstances beyond the applicant's control leading to the spiral of unfortunate misconduct and poor judgement. The unit was just being built up and lacked structure and order. The applicant found it difficult to conform to the chaotic and unstable command. The applicant longed for structure and a true leader, yet, found none. As a newly enlisted Soldier, the applicant had difficulty taking orders from those who did not see fit to lead, and the applicant began counseling to help maintain their emotions and sense of purpose and duty. Despite having few disciplinary threats to motivate the applicant, the applicant was still promoted through the regulatory periods from E-1 to E-3. While out hiking to maintain physical fitness, the applicant fell. The injury was extreme, and the command prepared a medical discharge. At first, the applicant chose to waive this option and tough it out. As time went on, however, the condition only worsened, leading the applicant to move forward with the MEBP process. The applicant's medication would knock the applicant out, and the applicant was unable to take the medication, resulting in the applicant's inability to sleep. The pain affected the applicant's behavior and how the applicant managed stress, as well as having a huge impact on the applicant's interpersonal relationships, especially with the chain of command. The applicant met and married PFC J. B. at Fort Riley. The applicant soon became pregnant, and the spouse deployed to Kuwait. The applicant's unit deployed the following day; however, the applicant stayed behind due to the pregnancy and MEB. The applicant began having abdominal cramping and bleeding, and a few days later, a miscarriage was confirmed. The applicant went through this alone, with no family and no friends. The event changed the applicant's outlook, and the applicant and spouse filed for annulment. With all the emotions, the applicant continued with the MEB appointments and mental health appointments. The applicant was considered AWOL because the applicant did not check in with the new unit nor did they attempt to contact the applicant. The new NCOs knew nothing of the applicant and took advantage of their roles and authority. This agitated the applicant's emotional and mental stability, causing the PTSD to snowball. The applicant's defiance was fueled by PTSD, as well as their abuse of power and constant harassment. The applicant continued with counseling with little effect. The command and corrective actions, letters of counseling, orders of reprimand and numerous Article 15s, four Article 86's, two Article 90 and lastly one violation of Article 134 were all within a 90 day period. The applicant's request to speak with a Chaplin was ignored, which had a devasting, long term effect on the applicant's PTSD. The applicant again became pregnant, and with the miscarriage, the applicant was afraid of losing this unborn child as well. This was the tipping point. The unit continued to badger, belittle, and even accuse the applicant of being racist. The MEB process was halted due to UCMJ disciplinary actions. Since the discharge the applicant has attended college and has gained employment. The applicant is held back in many ways regarding the military service discharge, proper healthcare, employment, and education opportunities. The VA has denied the applicant any treatment. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 May 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's mood disorder and asserted PTSD outweighing the basis for separation - multiple instances of AWOL, and breaking restriction. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 14 June 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 1 June 2007, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violating Article 86, UCMJ: Specification 1: On or about 2 February 2007, without authority, absent oneself from the unit and did remain so absent until on or about 1 March 2007. Specification 2: On or about 7 March 2007, without authority, absent oneself from the unit and did remain so absent until on or about 21 March 2007. Specification 3: On or about 17 April 2007, without authority, absent oneself from the unit and did remain so absent until on or about 24 April 2007. Specification 4: On or about 15 May 2007, without authority, absent oneself from the unit and did remain so absent until on or about 17 May 2007. Specification 5: On or about 22 May 2007, without authority, absent oneself from the unit and did remain so absent until on or about 24 May 2007. Charge II: Violating Article 134, UCMJ. The Specification: The applicant, having been restricted to the limits of Fort Riley by a person authorized to do so, did, on divers occasions, at or near Manhattan, Kansas and at or near Junction City, Kansas, between on or about 15 May 2007 and on or about 24 May 2007, break said restriction. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 1 May 2007 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 June 2007 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 September 2005 / 3 years, 20 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 119 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 1 year, 6 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Twelve Personnel Action Forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)," to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 2 February 2007; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 1 March 2007; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 7 March 2007; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 21 March 2007; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 17 April 2007; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 24 April 2007; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 15 May 2007; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 17 May 2007; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 22 May 2007; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 24 May 2007; From "Present for Duty (PDY)," to "Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)" effective 25 May 2007; and, From "Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)," to "Present for Duty (PDY)," effective 13 June 2007. Confinement Order, dated 25 May 2007, reflects the applicant was placed in pretrial confinement for the following charges: Article 86 x 5 (AWOL) and Article 90 x 2 (Willful Disobedience of Superior Commissioned Officer). Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for failure to obey a lawful order; failure to report; and, absent without leave. Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c(1). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 65 days: AWOL, 2 February 2007 - 28 February 2007 / NIF AWOL, 7 March 2007 - 20 March 2007 / NIF AWOL, 17 April 2007 - 23 April 2007 / NIF AWOL, 15 May 2007 - 16 May 2007 / NIF AWOL, 22 May 2007 - 23 May 2007 / Apprehended by Military Police CMA, 25 May 2007 - 12 June 2007 / Released from Confinement j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: A copy of a letter from Acadia Hospital, dated 4 April 2016, which reflects the applicant has been in individual therapy since 10 November 2014. The treating diagnoses is PTSD. Results of a Forensic Interview & Psychometric Testing, dated 9 September 2021, reflects a review of the applicant's service records demonstrate the following mental health diagnoses: Bipolar Disorder (does not specify I or II), Chronic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct. (2) AMHRR Listed: USA Medical Department Activity Memorandum, dated 27 April 2007, reflects the applicant was evaluated at the Community Mental Health Services (CMHS) clinic on 27 April 2007. The results of this evaluation indicated the Service Member is not imminently dangerous to self or others (and does not meet medical criteria for an inpatient psychiatric admission,) but is at risk to become unsafe because of ongoing stress and/or emotional problems. For this reason, the Soldier should be closely monitored by the command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; two self-authored statements; six third-party letters; DD Form 214; VA Rating Decision Letter; college certificate; Results of a Forensic Interview & Psychometric Testing. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has attended college and has gained employment. 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. (6) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II.) 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 "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. 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-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 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's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The evidence in the applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel, voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court- martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and indicated an understanding an under other than honorable conditions discharge could be received, and the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans' benefits. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends good service. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct The applicant contends being in physical pain after an injury and the pain affected the applicant's behavior and how the applicant managed stress as well as having an impact on the interpersonal relationship especially with the chain of command. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends suffering from PTSD after a miscarriage and having to cope with it alone without the spouse, who was deployed and having no family or friends to help. The applicant provided a copy of a letter from Acadia Hospital, dated 4 April 2016, which reflects the applicant has been in individual therapy since 10 November 2014. The treating diagnoses is PTSD. Results of a Forensic Interview & Psychometric Testing, dated 9 September 2021, reflects a review of the applicant's service records demonstrate the following mental health diagnoses: Bipolar Disorder (does not specify I or II), Chronic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct. The AMHRR does not contain a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the unit was just being built up and lacked order and structure. The applicant was being harassed by NCO's which agitated the applicant's emotional and mental stability causing the applicant's PTSD to snowball. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. 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 punishment. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran's benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good conduct after leaving the Army and the applicant's volunteer work. The applicant contends since the discharge the applicant has attended college and has gained employment. The applicant volunteers weekly as the school librarian. 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: Mood Disorder. Additionally, the applicant asserts PTSD, 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 evidence of a significant mood disorder and possible PTSD predating service per review of medical records. (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 record suggests inconsistent histories and contains inconsistent diagnoses over time, although the majority of diagnoses found in active service record are in the adjustment disorder spectrum, which are not typically considered mitigating. Under liberal consideration guidelines, the advisor finds there is clear evidence of a mood disorder, however, the applicant has also asserted PTSD; the assertion is worthy of consideration and there is reference to this diagnosis at the time of service in medical records. Despite inconsistent diagnoses and histories, advisor finds compelling evidence of noteworthy mood dysfunction, emotional dysregulation, and personality characteristics likely predating and certainly present at the time of service that allow for partial mitigation. It is the advisor's conclusion that the overall frequency and nature of the disciplinary offenses, to include those specific to the basis of separation, is not fully accounted for by applicant's mood instability although, at a minimum, the pre-existing issues created a clear pattern of poor adaptation to the military and difficulty adhering to military standards. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's mood disorder and asserted PTSD outweighed the basis for separation - multiple instances of AWOL, and breaking restriction - for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's mood disorder and asserted PTSD outweighing the applicant's AWOL and breaking restriction basis for separation thus, warranting a partial upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board found an upgrade to Honorable not supported by the evidence of record. The Honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of accept conduct and performance of duty or is otherwise meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. The Board found that the applicant's service, given the nature of the misconduct, was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (2) The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. 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. (3) The applicant contends being in physical pain after an injury and the pain affected the applicant's behavior and how the applicant managed stress as well as having an impact on the interpersonal relationship especially with the chain of command. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's mood disorder and asserted PTSD outweighing the applicant's basis for separation. (4) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD after a miscarriage and having to cope with it alone without the spouse, who was deployed, and having no family or friends to help. The Board considered this contention and determined that based on the applicant's mood disorder and asserted PTSD, an upgrade of the discharge was warranted. (5) The applicant contends the unit was just being built up and lacked order and structure. The applicant was being harassed by NCO's which agitated the applicant's emotional and mental stability. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's mood disorder and asserted PTSD outweighing the applicant's basis for separation. (6) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (7) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. (8) The applicant contends since the discharge the applicant has attended college and has gained employment. The applicant volunteers weekly as the school librarian. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's mood disorder and asserted PTSD outweighing the applicant's basis for separation. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's mood disorder and asserted PTSD outweighing the basis for separation - multiple instances of AWOL, and breaking restriction - thus warranting a partial upgrade. 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions because mood disorder and asserted PTSD outweighed the basis for separation - multiple instances of AWOL, and breaking restriction. The prior characterization is no longer appropriate. The Board determined the applicant's GD is appropriate as the applicant's entirety of service 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 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 and the applicant's BH conditions are service limiting. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions 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 AR20210002020 1