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 bad conduct. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, having an undiagnosed mental health condition unknown to the applicant or the Army, which led to the uncharacteristic behavior and leading to the bad conduct discharge. The applicant was suffering from delusions, depression, and severe mood swings and was unable to sleep while serving in Fort Benning. The applicant informed several superiors of the applicant's symptoms and concerns and did not receive the proper help. In July 2014, the applicant had a bi-polar break, which caused the unknown condition to surface. The applicant was sent to see a doctor and was treated with sleep medicine, but it never helped with the highs and lows the applicant was having. It was the cause of the applicant's acting out of character. The medicine allowed the applicant to sleep but the applicant was unable to get up in the morning. When the applicant awoke, the applicant was in a severe haze for hours. In January, the applicant was incarcerated. The applicant's parent was told it was for the applicant's own safety, but the applicant was not treated for the severe depression and the mental illness the applicant was experiencing. In March, the applicant was tried by court-martial. The applicant was told by the defense counsel not to say anything regarding the applicant's anxiety, depression, or auditory depression because of the plea bargain. The applicant was told, if it was mentioned, to disagree the applicant's misconduct was caused by the mental conditions. The applicant agreed to the terms because the applicant could serve extended time in jail. The applicant's anxiety seemed more severe and auditory hallucinations became more frequent. The applicant was afraid because the applicant did not know what the applicant was feeling and knew the medication the applicant was receiving while in jail was not helping. In 2015, the applicant returned home, and the applicant's undiagnosed condition worsened. The applicant sought several outside facilities for treatment and an answer. The applicant was unable to receive any help because the applicant's insurance was accepted in the Northern Region because the applicant was stationed in the Southern Region. The applicant was so severe, the applicant's parent transferred the applicant to Baystate Crisis Center. The applicant was admitted for treatment against the applicant's will, but the applicant was discharged because of insurance issues. The applicant's parent was finally able to obtain treatment for the applicant at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital. In August 2015, the applicant was admitted to the VA mental health ward for evaluation. The applicant was diagnosed with bio-polar disorder, psychosis, sleep disorder, anxiety, and depression. The VA admitted the applicant to the drug rehabilitation program because of self- medicating. The applicant is taking the proper medication needed to treat these disorders to function properly. The applicant was proud to be a Soldier. Mental illness is a serious condition which affects many people and their families. It is not discussed enough to provide people the proper education. The applicant requests an upgrade to receive proper treatment for the mental illness and to move on with the applicant's life. The applicant further details the contentions in a self-authored statement, to include a request to overturn the conviction. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 23 March 2023, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI diagnoses). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Under Other Than 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: Court-Martial (Other) / AR 635-200, Chapter 3 / JJD / RE-4 / Bad Conduct b. Date of Discharge: 5 August 2016 c. Separation Facts: The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the case separation file. However, the applicant provided several documents which are described below in 3c(1) through (4). (1) Pursuant to Special Court-Martial Empowered to Adjudge a Bad-Conduct Discharge: As announced by Special Court-Martial Order Number 9, dated 18 September 2015, on 26 March 2015, the applicant was found guilty of the following: Charge I, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ: Specification 1: Between 31 October and 3 November 2014, wrongfully used 3, 4- methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA), a schedule I controlled substance. Plea: Guilty. Specification 2: Between 13 November and 16 November 2014, wrongfully used 3, 4- methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), a schedule I controlled substance. Plea: Guilty. Specification 3: Between 13 November and 16 November 2014, wrongfully used 3, 4- methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), a schedule I controlled substance. Plea: Guilty. Charge II, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ, Specifications 1 and 2: On 17 October and 31 October 2014, without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty. Pleas: Guilty. Additional Charge I, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ: Specifications 1 through 7: On 13 and 17 October 2014, 4 and 18 November 2014, 29 December 2014, and 6 and 21 January 2015, without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty. Pleas: Guilty. Additional Charge II, in violation of Article 90, UCMJ, The Specification: Having received a lawful command from Captain R. P., the superior commissioned officer, to check in with Battalion Staff Duty every two hours between 0600-2100, or words to that effect, on 16 and 17 January 2015, willfully disobeyed the same. Plea: Guilty. 2d Additional Charge, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ, Specification 2: At Fort Benning, Georgia, between on 15 December 2014 and 12 January 2015, violated a lawful written order, to wit: Maneuver Center of Excellence Regulation 190-11, paragraph 2-3b(3), dated 11 August 2014, by wrongfully possessing ammunition in the barracks room. Plea: Guilty. (2) Adjudged Sentence: Reduction to E-1; to be confined for three months, and to be discharged from the service with a Bad Conduct discharge. (3) Date / Sentence Approved: 18 September 2015 / The sentence was approved and, except for the part of the sentence extending to a bad conduct discharge, would be executed. The applicant was credited with 67 days of confinement towards the sentence to confinement. (4) Appellate Reviews: The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of The Army for review by the Court of Military Review. The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence. (5) Date Sentence of BCD Ordered Executed: 24 June 2016 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 July 2013 / 3 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 19K10, M1 Armor Crewman / 2 years, 10 days, 11 days / The AMHRR reflects the applicant was on excess leave for 448 days: 16 May 2015 to 5 August 2016. 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: Special Court-Martial Order, as described in previous paragraph 3c. Memorandum, dated 14 November 2014, reflecting the applicant tested positive for MDMA (ectasy), during a urinalysis test conducted on 3 November 2014. Memorandum, dated 1 December 2014, reflecting the applicant tested positive for MDA, MDMA, during a urinalysis test conducted on 16 November 2014. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)," to "Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)," effective date 23 January 2015; and From "CMA" to "PDY," effective date 9 April 2015. Electronic Mail messages, dated 9 February 2010, reflecting Captain R. P. recommended the applicant's request for Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, discharge in lieu of court-martial be disapproved. The applicant's DD Form 214, reflects the applicant had not completed the first full term of service. The applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, Chapter 3, with a narrative reason of Court-Martial (other). The DD Form 214 was not authenticated with the applicant's signature. The applicant had lost time for the period 23 January to 8 April 2015. Three Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 76 days (CMA, 23 January 2015 - 8 April 2015) / Released from Confinement j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Emergency Department Patient Instructions Baystate Medical Center, dated 17 June 2015, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with depression. Special Court-Martial Record of Trial, pages 158 through 172, authentication date 6 July 2015, reflecting the military judge questioned the applicant's defense counsel and the applicant regarding a mental responsibility defense. The defense counsel indicated there was no need for an R.C.M. 706 Sanity Board and the defense counsel consulted with mental health professionals regarding the applicant's mental responsibility. The applicant indicated at the time of the offenses the applicant did not believe the applicant suffered from a severe mental disease or defect which affected the applicant's behavior, and the applicant appreciated the wrongfulness of the applicant's actions. The VA Health Care letter, dated 27 August 2015, reflected the applicant was in inpatient stay at the VA health care System from 19 August to 18 September 2015 for treatment for psychosis, not otherwise specified, and substance abuse. The VA Health Care letter, dated 15 October 2015, reflecting the applicant had an inpatient stay from 19 August to 17 September 2015. The applicant was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. The VA Health Care letter, dated 14 March 2016, reflecting the applicant's history of treatment at the facility and the applicant's progress with treatment. The applicant was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and depression. The applicant is enrolled at Holyoke community College and has a real drive to be a productive member of society. Congressional letter, dated 16 March 2016, reflecting the applicant contacted Congressman R. N.'s office for assistance. The letter explained the applicant was suffering for years with an undiagnosed medical condition which now has been properly diagnosed and is being treated. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; self-authored statement; military service record; separation documents; court-martial record of trial; literature on bi-polar disorder; civilian medical records; congressional letter; college transcript; and numerous third party statements, to include from the applicant's parent. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is enrolled at Holyoke community College and has a real drive to be a productive member of society. 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), dated 25 September 2019, 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for separation specifically allows such characterization. (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) Paragraph 3-11 states a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. The appellate review must be completed, and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. Questions concerning the finality of appellate review should be referred to the servicing SJA. 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 "JJD" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 3, Court-Martial (other). 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 applicant's AMHRR indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. The applicant's AMHRR includes partial facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. 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 3, by reason of Court-Martial (Other), with a characterization of service of bad conduct. The applicant provided documentation which supports the characterization and reason for discharge. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 3, AR 635-200 with a bad conduct discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Court-Martial (Other)," and the separation code is "JJD." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs 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 bipolar disorder, psychosis, and depression affected behavior which led to the discharge and the defense counsel instructed the applicant not to disclose the mental health conditions during the court-martial proceedings. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and depression and third party statements describing the applicant's behavior which caused some concerns regarding the applicant's mental stability. The applicant provided the court-martial record of trial reflecting the applicant's mental health was discussed and the court, defense counsel, and the applicant agreed the applicant's behavior did not affect the applicant's behavior when committing the offenses charged. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good conduct after leaving the Army. 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 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 attending Holyoke community College and has a real drive to be a productive member of society. 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: Bipolar Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, Depression, and Psychosis. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant was diagnosed in service with multiple BH conditions to include Bipolar Disorder and Psychosis, as well as significant substance abuse, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Malingering. The VA has not service connected any conditions. (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 was diagnosed in service with multiple BH conditions to include Bipolar Disorder and Psychosis, as well as significant substance abuse, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Malingering. The VA has not service connected any conditions. Applicant's Bipolar Disorder and Psychosis should be considered by the Board given the nexus between these BH conditions and erratic behavior, self-medicating with substances, and difficulty with reality testing and daily functioning. However, the medical record supports that applicant's BH symptoms were more likely than not a result of an extensive pattern of substance abuse, a maladaptive personality structure, and malingering for secondary gain. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the applicant's Bipolar Disorder and Psychosis outweighed the seven FTRs, multiple positive UAs for drug abuse, and disobeying an order basis for separation 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 a determined the applicant's narrative reason for discharge is appropriate due to the severity of the offenses. The Board voted to upgrade the characterization of service to UOTH based on the applicant's Bipolar Disorder and Psychosis partially mitigating some misconduct leaving the remaining misconduct of malingering, a pattern of substance abuse and maladaptive personality structure and malingering for secondary gain unmitigated. (2) The applicant contends bipolar disorder, psychosis, and depression affected behavior which led to the discharge and the defense counsel instructed the applicant not to disclose the mental health conditions during the court-martial proceedings. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The characterization of service is upgraded to UOTH based on the applicant's Bipolar Disorder and Psychosis partially mitigating some misconduct leaving the remaining misconduct of malingering, a pattern of substance abuse and maladaptive personality structure and malingering for secondary gain unmitigated. (3) The applicant contends good service. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant's service record. (4) 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. (5) 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. (6) The applicant contends attending Holyoke community College and has a real drive to be a productive member of society. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that an upgrade to UOTH is warranted based on the applicant's Bipolar Disorder and Psychosis partially mitigating some misconduct leaving the remaining misconduct of malingering, a pattern of substance abuse and maladaptive personality structure and malingering for secondary gain unmitigated. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI diagnoses). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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 Under Other Than Honorable Conditions because the applicant's Bipolar Disorder and Psychosis partially mitigated the applicant's misconduct of seven FTRs, multiple positive UAs for drug abuse, and disobeying an order. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. The frequency and severity of the applicant's partially mitigated misconduct, the remaining unmitigated misconduct of malingering, a pattern of substance abuse and malingering for secondary gain diminished the applicant's quality of service below that level of satisfactory service meriting a General Discharge. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Other Than 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 AR20210002162 1