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, after informing the immediate commander, Captain (CPT) N. C., post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms made the applicant go absent without leave (AWOL), the commander did not have the applicant evaluated. After CPT N. C. was relieved of command, the applicant was given the opportunity to be evaluated. The applicant believes if the applicant had been evaluated, it would have prevented the applicant from committing the offenses and having several problems. The applicant provided the Orders 0169-046 for Iraq and spreadsheets to prove the applicant’s social security number was compromised, along with several others. The applicant did surrender after being absent without leave (AWOL) and paid for the bad decisions. The applicant suffers from PTSD and the applicant’s parent paid $2000 for the applicant to be tested by a certified doctor. The applicant did not have control of the emotions after the applicant returned from Iraq. The applicant desires to explain the charge of theft by auto. The applicant’s friend gave the applicant the keys to borrow the friend’s car. The applicant’s friend was paid for the inconvenience of not returning the car on the agreed date. The friend was contacted and reimbursed for the expenses, but the applicant was still charged. The commander and the attorney were provided with a check. The applicant did not have a commander who believed the applicant. The applicant did not believe the applicant had the support and ran. It was a bad choice of behavior, but the applicant was stressed, with a commander who did not care. The applicant’s chemical gear was turned in, but the applicant was charged for the gear through the applicant’s taxes because the applicant’s supervisor did not update the applicant’s turn-in records or provide a hand-receipt. The applicant does not have proof of payment. In 2013, when the applicant filed taxes, $500 was deducted from the applicant. This could be verified through Army finance or the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The applicant’s relative, S. C., is able to testify, the applicant’s supervisor retrieved the applicant’s chemical gear from the applicant’s residence in Fayetteville. The applicant’s relative was not provided a hand-receipt. An upgrade and correction to the DD Form 214 would allow the applicant to have better job opportunities and to receive the help the applicant needs for the PTSD to function. The applicant paid for the decisions made, but continues to pay when applying for jobs or filing taxes. The applicant details the contentions in a self-authored statements submitted with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 17 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 31 July 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 9 April 2009, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violating Article 86, UCMJ: Specification 1: Fail to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on divers occasions 14 and 27 January and 19 February 2009. Specification 2: Being absent from the unit, without authority, from 19 to 20 February 2009. Specification 3: Being absent from the unit, without authority from 24 March to 7 April 2009. Charge II: Violating Article 90, UCMJ, The Specification: Willfully disobey a lawful command from CPT N. C., a superior commissioned officer, to remain within the limits of the barracks area on 22 March 2009. Charge III: Violating Article 112a, UCMJ: Specification 1: Wrongfully use marijuana between 19 February and 5 March 2009. Specification 2: Wrongfully use cocaine between 27 February and 5 March 2009. Charge IV: Violating Article 121, UCMJ: Specification 1: Did steal a bottle of Grey Goose vodka, of a value less than $500, the property of the Army Air Force Exchange Service on 20 February 2009. Specification 2: Did steal a 2000 Nissan Altima, of a value of more than $500, the property of Specialist M. L., on 22 March 2009. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 6 May 2009 (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: 3 July 2009 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 January 2007 / 3 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / AAD / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 2 years, 1 month, 27 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq-Kuwait (27 July 2007 – 13 October 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: GWOTSM, ASR, ARCOM, ICM-BSS, NDSM, OSR, MUC g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Six Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective date 19 February 2009; From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective date 23 February 2009; From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective date 24 March 2009; From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective date 7 April 2009; From “PDY” to “Confined,” effective date 9 April 2009; and From “Confined by Military Authorities (CMA),” to “Confined by Civil Authorities (CCA),” effective date 25 June 2009. Bibb County, Georgia, Criminal Arrest Warrant, dated 10 April 2009, reflects between 1 and 4 April 2009, the applicant committed the offense of Burglary. Investigation revealed the applicant damaged a garage door and entered the home. The applicant stole a 42’ Flat panel TV, three shotguns, and a PlayStation; estimated value of $3,600. Bibb County, Georgia, Criminal Arrest Warrant, dated 10 April 2009, reflects on 2 April 2009, the applicant committed the offense of Burglary. The applicant damaged and kicked the front door in and was lying on the floor. The applicant stole a Tissot Watch valued at $600; a Flat panel Toshiba 32’ TV, a value of $800; Sony Laptop, valued at $900; Cannon camera digital valued at $350; and a PlayStation 3 valued at $500. Bibb County, Georgia, Criminal Arrest Warrant, dated 15 April 2009, reflects on 30 March 2009, the applicant committed the offense of Theft by Taking Auto. The applicant was witness by the applicant’s sibling, in M. L.’s 2000 Gray Nissan Altima, four door vehicle, which was taken from a particular address and was parking (sic) the victim’s vehicle at the address. The applicant was AWOL from the Army. District Attorney (DA) letter, dated 22 June 2009, reflects the DA’s intent was to seek an indictment from the Grand Jury against the applicant for two counts of the felony offense of burglary. Memorandum, subject: Request for Transfer of Soldier to Civilian Authorities, dated 22 June 2009, reflects the trial counsel requested the transfer based on three outstanding arrest warrants for two counts of burglary and one count of theft by taking automobile from Bibby County. Based on discussions with the DA, the crimes were punishable by approximately 10 years in jail. Memorandum for Record, subject: Retention, dated 15 July 2009, reflects the applicant was confined and Sergeant N. J. and Sergeant C. M. were authorized to clear on the applicant’s behalf. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 129 days: AWOL, 19 February 2009 – 22 February 2009 / NIF AWOL, 24 March 2009 – 6 April 2009 / NIF CMA, 9 April 2009 – 22 June 2009 / Transferred to Civil Confinement CCA, 23 June 2009 – 31 July 2009 / Discharged While Confined j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Letter from Dr. K. D., psychiatrist, dated 12 August 2016, reflecting the applicant was evaluated at the Bibb County Law Enforcement Center. The psychiatrist described the applicant’s psychiatric history, as well as what the applicant reported and diagnosed the applicant with: PTSD, chronic; major depression, recurrent, without psychotic features; cocaine use disorder; and amphetamine type substance disorder (methamphetamine). (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; DD Form 215; DD Form 293; numerous self-authored statements; Orders 169-046 with Amendment; Orders 016-046; Personnel Action forms; congressional documents, to include a letter to the president; Army Review Boards Agency, Case Management Division letter; psychiatrist affidavit; two third party letters of support (parents); marriage certificate; court documents related to marriage; and military awards / recommendations. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 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.) (7) Paragraph 10b stipulates Soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier’s record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. 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 waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable 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 the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial,” and the separation code is “KFS.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2- 3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends PTSD and other mental health conditions affected behavior, which ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant provided a letter from a psychiatrist indicating a diagnosis of PTSD, chronic; major depression, recurrent, without psychotic features; cocaine use disorder; and amphetamine type substance disorder (methamphetamine). The applicant provided letters from the applicant’s parents attesting to a drastic change in the applicant’s behavior after deployment. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends discrimination by members of the chain of command, as reported in the psychiatric evaluation. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant contends the command did not assist the applicant with the mental health issues. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. 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 applicant contends the funds the applicant paid for the chemical gear should be refunded to the applicant. The applicant’s request does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. 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 with associated depression. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD/associated depression dating to applicant’s active-duty service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that despite the lack of a PTSD diagnosis while on Active Duty, under liberal consideration guidelines the civilian diagnosis of PTSD with depression is appreciated and linked to applicant’s period of service. PTSD results in partial mitigation in the circumstances of separation; there is a nexus between PTSD and avoidance behaviors to include AWOL and failure to report, as well as between PTSD and illicit substance use due to self-medication of PTSD-related symptoms. PTSD and/or depression may not necessarily mitigate failure to obey a lawful order, but in the applicant’s case this appears related to breaking a restriction which can be construed as an anxiety or avoidance behavior. PTSD and/or depression do not result in the inability to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right and there is no nexus between PTSD/depression and either of the theft related behaviors listed on applicant’s charge sheet, nor is there a nexus between PTSD and the multiple burglaries noted in applicant’s record. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD with associated depression outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – theft less than $500.00 and auto theft misconduct – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge is appropriate as applicant’s PTSD does not mitigate or excuse applicant’s theft less than $500.00 and auto theft misconduct. (2) The applicant contends PTSD and other mental health conditions affected behavior, which ultimately led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined applicant’s discharge is appropriate as applicant’s PTSD does not mitigate or excuse applicant’s theft less than $500.00 and auto theft misconduct. (3) The applicant contends discrimination by members of the chain of command, as reported in the psychiatric evaluation. The Board considered this contention and determined there is insufficient evidence to support the chain of command discrimitated against the applicant. Ultimately, this contention does not excuse or mitigate the applicant’s misconduct of theft less than $500.00, auto theft misconduct, multiple AWOLs, FTRs, marijuana use and cocaine use. (4) The applicant contends the command did not assist the applicant with the mental health issues. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention that the discharge was improper or inequitable. In light of the current evidence of record, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate. (5) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the applicant’s 2 years of service, including a combat tour in Iraq and the numerous awards received by the applicant but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s misconduct of theft less than $500.00, auto theft misconduct, multiple AWOLs, FTRs, marijuana use and cocaine use. (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 the funds the applicant paid for the chemical gear should be refunded to the applicant. 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. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s PTSD with associated depression did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of theft less than $500.00 and auto theft misconduct. 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. (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 AR20210002040 1