1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: 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, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, before enlistment, having a very difficult childhood. The applicant enlisted in the Army on 18 July 2001, and was assigned to Fort Sill for the majority of the applicant's time on active duty. Before the applicant's deployment to Iraq, the applicant was involved in several minor unauthorized absences and a minor act of disobedience. The applicant was deployed from 23 March to 3 December 2003 for 8 months and 10 days. The applicant earned various awards and decorations. The applicant returned to the United States because of a Red Cross request for emergency leave because of the applicant's parent's illness. While in Los Angeles, the applicant was in an automobile accident and sustained injuries, and as a result, the applicant's unit instructed the applicant to report to Fort Sill rather than return to Iraq. Following the applicant's duty in Iraq, the applicant experienced numerous medical difficulties and was treated by Army medical personnel for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The applicant received an Article 15, non-judicial punishment, on 25 February 2004 for failure to report to the place of duty. Around May 2004, the applicant's command ordered the applicant to be restricted to Fort Sill and could not leave without an escort. The applicant was ordered to live and sleep in the kitchen facility for five to six days until the applicant filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint, at which time the applicant was given a room. While there are several counseling instances documented throughout the applicant's records, most of them do not involve any misconduct or offenses, which should not be considered in any evaluation of the character of discharge the applicant should have. The applicant had seven minor unauthorized absences and two minor incidents of disobedience. On 13 May 2004, the applicant was served with a Letter of Notification under AR 635-200 Chapter 14-12, to be administratively discharged for a Pattern of Misconduct. On 16 June 2004, the applicant was served with a new Letter of Notification for administrative discharge under Chapter 14-12c, for Commission of a Serious Offense. On 8 July 2004, an administrative discharge board convened to consider the applicant's case. The applicant appeared before the board without counsel and the hearing was continued until 10 July 2004. After the board hearing, under duress, the applicant submitted an unconditional waiver of the board, and the discharge was issued on or about 14 July 2004. The applicant was improperly denied the right to counsel and to a board hearing. The applicant's unconditional waiver of the board was not voluntary. The counsel and the applicant further detail the contentions in a supplemental legal brief and the applicant's affidavit. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 27 April 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, applicant's PTSD and TBI diagnoses, and applicant's post service accomplishments outweighing the applicant's discharge. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board voted and determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable due to applicant's PTSD and TBI diagnoses warranting consideration prior to reentry of military service. 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 / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 July 2004 c. Separation Facts: The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the case separation file. However, the applicant provided documents which are described below in 3c(1) through (6). (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 May 2004 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant received numerous counseling statements for failure to report, missing movement, and malingering. These are violations of Articles 86 and 115, UCMJ. The applicant received formal punishment under the UCMJ for the actions. The applicant was pending charges for possession of marijuana and steroids and for possession with the intent to distribute gamma- hydroxybutyrate (GHB) and methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) by the District Attorney of Comanche County. Possession of controlled substances is also a serious offense under the UCMJ. The applicant's conduct was not conducive to the good order and discipline of the Army. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 June 2004 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 4 June 2004, 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) discharge. The applicant stated the request was made on the applicant's own free will and without any coercion. On 10 June 2004, the separation authority disapproved the applicant's conditional waiver and referred the case to an administrative separation board. Memorandum, Notification to Appear Before an Administrative Separation Board, dated 16 June 2004, reflects the applicant was notified, but the Acknowledgment was undated. On 8 July 2004, the administrative separation board convened, and the applicant appeared without counsel. The applicant waived military legal counsel and retained civilian counsel at the applicant's expense. The president of the board delayed the hearing until 10 July 2004 to provide the applicant's civilian counsel the opportunity to attend and represent the applicant. On 9 July 2004, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. The applicant stated the request was made on the applicant's own free will and without any coercion. On 14 July 2004, the separation authority approved the unconditional waiver. (1) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 14 July 2004 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 July 2001 / 3 years / The applicant's DD Form 214 reflects the was discharged from the delayed entry program (DEP) was on 28 May 2001 and the date the applicant entered active duty was on 18 July 2001. The applicant's Enlistment Contract reflects the applicant was discharged from the DEP on 16 July 2001. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / Some College / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13P10, Multiple Launch Rocket System / Fire Direction Specialist / 2 years, 11 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (23 March 2003 - 3 December 2003) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, ASR, GWOTSM, GWOTEM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant provided Developmental Counseling Form, dated 21 May 2004, reflecting the applicant was informed of restriction of pass privileges and the limits of the restriction. The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 21 June 2004, reflects the applicant was flagged for Adverse Action (AA) and Involuntary Separation or Discharge (Field Initiated) (BA), both effective 7 May 2004. The applicant provided excerpt of a formal AR 15-6 Investigation proceedings summarized transcript, dated 8 July 2004, reflecting the administrative separation board had a hearing and the applicant appeared without counsel. The board president decided to delay further proceedings until 10 July 2004 to give the applicant's civilian attorney the opportunity to appear before the board. The applicant objected because the applicant's civilian attorney would not be able to attend on the rescheduled date. The transcript reveals the legal advisor to the board indicated a concern of providing a delay after 10 July 2004 because the separation authority needed time to consider the board's recommendation and the applicant was approaching the expiration term of service. Orders 197-0145, dated 13 July 2004, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 16 July 2004 from the Regular Army. The applicant's DD Form 214, reflects the applicant had completed the first full term of service. The applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, with a narrative reason of Misconduct. The DD Form 214 was not authenticated with the applicant's signature. The applicant had lost days for the period 7 May 2004 to 12 May 2004. The applicant provided: Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) Case Summary for CF-2004-268, State of Oklahoma, dated 22 November 2005, reflecting the applicant was convicted on 22 November 2005, of: Count 1, Possession of Controlled Substance, DUI2I (7 May 2004). Plea. Guilty; Count 2, Possession of Controlled Substance, DUI2I (7 May 2004). Plea. Guilty; Count 3, Possession of Controlled Substance, DUI4I (7 May 2004). Plea. Guilty; and Count 4, Possession of Controlled Substance, DUI2III (7 May 2004). Plea. Guilty. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 6 days (Confinement, 7 May 2004 - 12 May 2004) / NIF j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Report of Medical History, dated 21 May 2004, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Panic attack with vertigo; pending Community Mental Health Services (CMHS) approval. Regimented Inmate Discipline (R. I. D.) Program, dated 27 October 2005, reflecting as presenting problems: Chemical dependence and anti-social personality traits. The applicant completed the two phases of treatment provided at the Oklahoma RID Corps, for young offenders. Psychological Evaluation, dated 6 October 2010, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with: PTSD; Social anxiety disorder; Major depressive disorder in partial remission; History of poly-substance abuse; Pathological gambling, in remission. History of lacerated liver; Back and ankle problems, unspecified; Status of discharge; Lack of gainful employment; Living with aunt, cannot afford housing; History of felony drug conviction Global Assessment Functioning (GAF) 49, highest in past year 40 The psychologist found the applicant's military service deployment and childhood traumas, to include sexual abuse, contributed to the applicant's diagnoses. Pacific Clinics Advancing Behavioral Healthcare, dated 25 October 2016, reflecting the applicant was receiving mental health services at Pacific Clinics and was admitted on 25 July 2016. The applicant was treated for PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; Legal Brief with all exhibits A through AA; Supplemental Legal Brief; Congressional Casework Authorization Form; VA Higher Level Review Introduction letter; electronic mail messages; psychological evaluation; Pacific Clinics letter; and military service records. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant maintains employment; attends a full load of classes at a Community College, pursuing a degree in economics; contributes as a member of society, constantly reaching out to help other veterans with psychological problems through the veteran's support group; cares for the biological parent; and works very hard to be a positive role model for the applicant's younger sibling. 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 waivable and nonwaivable 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 waivable. 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's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR) is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant provided separation documents which provided the reasons for separation. The applicant's AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant's signature. The applicant's DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed to expiration term of service. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct," and the separation code is "JKQ." 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 affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating diagnoses: PTSD; social anxiety disorder; major depressive disorder in partial remission; and history of poly-substance abuse. The applicant provided third party statements from family members attesting to the applicant's childhood traumas, to include sexual abuse, and a change in the applicant's behavior after deployment. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation (MSE). The applicant contends the offenses leading to the discharge were minor. The AMHRR indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5c states that circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends being improperly denied the right to counsel during the administrative separation board proceedings. The applicant provided separation documents reflecting the applicant was provided a military defense counsel and the opportunity to retain a civilian counsel. The applicant contends being denied an administrative separation board and the applicant's unconditional waiver of the board was not voluntary. The Board transcript provided by the applicant reflects the applicant's testimony, including that the applicant's civilian counsel requested a 7-day delay. The Board president denied the request. The applicant declined military counsel and submitted an unconditional waiver after the board recessed and prior to the reconvening two days later because the applicant would be required to represent themself based on the unavailability of applicant's attorney. Also, the applicant's civilian attorney submitted an affidavit stating that the applicant requested representation one day after the applicant' submitted the first conditional waiver was denied (when represented by TDS counsel) which the civilian counsel requested a week continuance (see additional evidence, page 55). The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant and recognize the applicant's good conduct after leaving the Army. 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, TBI, MDD, and Anxiety Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant provided civilian medical documentation to support a in service diagnosis of PTSD related to combat made one month after applicant's discharge. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with PTSD, MDD, Anxiety Disorder and TBI. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant's PTSD mitigated the applicant's FTR offenses as there is a nexus between PTSD and avoidance. Further, the applicant's PTSD/TBI mitigate the applicant's drug offenses as there is a nexus between PTSD/TBI and self-medicating with substances. However, the applicant's behavioral health conditions do not mitigate the applicant's offense of malingering and malingering involves conscious, intentional, and willful acts not associated with the applicant's behavioral health conditions. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After liberally considering the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD/TBI/MDD does not outweigh the applicant's medically unmitigated offenses - malingering. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends that the applicant was improperly denied the right to counsel and right to a Board Hearing which requires a discharge upgrade. The Board President's decision not to allow the 5-day delay requested by Applicant from 8 July to 13 July to allow Attorney Caudle to represent him was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion and prejudicially deprived Applicant of his right to be represented by Attorney Caudle in violation of AR 15-6, para 5-6c and the U.S. Constitutional and AR 635-200, para 3-7e. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on length and quality of service, to include combat service, applicant's PTSD and TBI diagnoses, and applicant's post service accomplishments outweighing the applicant's discharge. (2) Based on the denial of the applicant's right to counsel, the applicant submitted an unconditional waiver. The applicant contends that the applicant was improperly discharged as the applicant's unconditional waiver of the Board was not voluntary. The applicant contends that the waiver was also a produce of the confusion, badgering, obfuscation, and undue influence of the Board President, the Government Counsel, and the person who appears to the legal advisor in violation of AR 635-200, para 2-5. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on length and quality of service, to include combat service, applicant's PTSD and TBI diagnoses, and applicant's post service accomplishments outweighing the applicant's discharge. (3) The applicant contends that the applicant was wrongfully denied the right to counsel, and thus, effectively was denied a right to a Board hearing which are serious, fundamental and prejudicial error constituting an automatic per se prejudicial standard which does not require demonstrating that the discharge or its characterization would have been different had the Government not denied the applicant these rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that there are some constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on length and quality of service, to include combat service, applicant's PTSD and TBI diagnoses, and applicant's post service accomplishments outweighing the applicant's discharge. (4) The applicant contends that as a matter of equity the applicant deserves an Honorable or General Discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on length and quality of service, to include combat service, applicant's PTSD and TBI diagnoses, and applicant's post service accomplishments outweighing the applicant's discharge. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, applicant's PTSD and TBI diagnoses, and applicant's post service accomplishments outweighing the applicant's discharge. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board voted and determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable due to applicant's PTSD and TBI diagnoses warranting consideration prior to reentry of military service. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, applicant's PTSD and TBI diagnoses, and applicant's post service accomplishments outweigh the applicant's discharge. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The RE code will not change, due to applicant's PTSD and TBI diagnoses warranting consideration prior to reentry of military service. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210002043 1