1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, in October 2003, the applicant was deployed to Kosovo in service of the KFOR in Kosovo. During the six-month deployment Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) was launched and the applicant was extended for three months. In the total of nine months, the applicant was promoted two times. The applicant was awarded a squad over a senior E-6 due to the applicant’s leadership abilities as well as professionalism. The applicant was awarded a ARCOM twice in this deployment one as an impact award from a General Officer. The applicant returned to Germany after this deployment. On 14 February 2005, the applicant was sent as an advance party to OIF in the heart of Iraqi. They were immediately thrown into combat as every day they were mortared. The applicant witnessed the death of a young SSG from another unit who was hit by an IED. Later it became more and more often they would get mortared. In one of several incidents, the applicant was talking with a specialist who was in the same company which lived next to the applicant. The Specialist was telling the applicant how they were going to leave Iraq after the tour and get married to the fiancée. On 20 April 2004 while on patrol, the specialist was the gunner in a HUMMVEE when it was hit by and IED. The Specialist was killed. When the applicant returned to base, while the other Soldiers were being checked out at the TMC, the applicant was cleaning brain matter and bone fragments off from the Specialist’s weapon to be turned in to the Armorer. There were other incidents where Soldiers died. The applicant went to the Chaplain to talk however was told to come back at another time the Chaplain was busy. The applicant also asked for help from the doctors which were there and was told the applicant should be sent back to Germany for an evaluation, however the commander stated no it would send the wrong message to the other Soldiers it would be okay to be weak. The applicant was sent to another base camp which was about ten minutes away in a more hostile area. While there, the applicant was given a negative NCOER after receiving a positive NCOER just three months before. On 14 June 2004, the applicant’s parent passed away and the applicant went home on emergency leave. While enroute back to Iraq, the applicant’s flight was delayed in DC and the applicant took a taxi to Walter Reed hospital to visit a friend who was hit by an IED in Iraq. The friend was in a comma and the applicant spoke with the parents outside of the room. The applicant broke down seeing the friend hooked up to all those machines. As the applicant was leaving the hospital a doctor saw the applicant outside crying and asked the applicant to come in the hospital and talk. The applicant was then admitted to the psychiatric ward where the applicant spent a month. The applicant was processed for discharge at Walter Reed. The next week, the applicant was told the Commander wanted the applicant to come back to the unit home station in Germany to clear. The applicant was put on a plane and flown to Iraq. Once in Iraq, the applicant was not allowed to have a weapon and was escorted to the bathroom. The applicant was told by the commander, the applicant should just sign all the papers and say nothing, and the applicant could get out of Iraq as quick as possible so the applicant could get the help needed. The applicant was discharged however is unable to get the help needed from the VA. The applicant is now married to a loving spouse who is also a disabled Veteran and the applicant has never been arrested or had a traffic ticket. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 21 March 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 September 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 September 2004 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Failure to conform to military standards of conduct as shown by the applicant’s disrespect towards a senior commissioned officer; Insubordinate conduct towards a senior noncommissioned officer; Communicating a threat; Wrongful impersonation of a noncommissioned officer; and, Absenting oneself from the unit. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 10 September 2004, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 10 September 2004, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 September 2004 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 November 2001 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 30 / High School Graduate / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 21B20, Combat Engineer / 11 years, 4 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 27 September 1989 – 6 February 1990 / NIF ADT, 7 February 1990 – 7 June 1990 / NIF ARNG, 8 June 1990 – 13 September 1990 / NIF USAR, 14 September 1990 – 27 August 1991 / NIF ARNG, 28 August 1991 – 1 October 1992 / GD USAR, 2 October 1992 – 13 January 1994 NIF RA, 14 January 1994 – 7 October 1996 / HD RA, 8 October 1996 – 22 April 1997 / GD (Break in Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Kosovo (2 November 2002 – 10 July 2003); Iraq (12 February 2004 – 14 June 2004; 2 August 2004 – 22 September 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM-2, AFEM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL-2, GWOTSM, GWOTEM, KCM, NDSM-BS g. Performance Ratings: March 2003 – December 2003 / Fully Capable January 2004 – April 2004 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 24 May 2004, for behaving with disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer on or about 25 April 2004; and, on or about 22 February 2004, treat with contempt to a superior noncommissioned officer. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $946 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty for 45 days. Two Personnel Action Forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 7 July 2004; and, From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 26 July 2004. FG Article 15, dated 20 August 2004, for being absent from the unit on or about 7 July 2004 until on or about 26 July 2004; communicate a threat to SFC M. on or about 9 August 2004; and, impersonate a noncommissioned officer on or about 6 July 2004. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $647 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty for 45 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for 19 days, 7 July 2004 to 26 July 2004. This period is not annotated on the DD Form 214 block 29. j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 July 2004, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with a clear thinking process. The applicant was diagnosed with Axis I: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotion and Conduct. Department of Veterans Letter, dated 30 November 2007, reflects the applicant was referred to the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Clinical Team (PCT) by one of the treating clinicians at the Miami VA Healthcare System, who believes that applicant may be suffering from military related PTSD. Department of Veterans Affairs Letter, dated 17 September 2008, reflects the applicant’s referral to the PCT was reviewed by the interdisciplinary treatment team. The applicant’s reported pattern of problems and symptoms appear to be consistent with individuals who suffer from military PTSD. As such, the applicant was enrolled in the PCT clinic for group therapy, individual therapy, and medication management. (2) AMHRR Listed: Mental Status Evaluation, dated 7 June 2004, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with a clear thinking process. It was noted: The applicant entered the Combat Stress fitness Program on 1 June 2004. The applicant was initially experiencing depressive symptoms and appeared somewhat anxious. While the applicant attended the majority of the classes and scheduled activities, the applicant often attempted to get out of going to them. The applicant often needed significant prompting to participate in the mandatory activities in the program. A screening test for mental illness was administered and indicated an over endorsement of psychiatric symptoms. This likely indicated the applicant is overstating the symptoms. It is important to note the applicant did seem somewhat depressed and agreed to a trial of Effexor XR 37.5 mg QAM with a slow tapering of Paxil which is now at 20 mg. QHS. Additionally, the applicant was started on Zyprexa 5 mg QHS for anxiety and insomnia. The applicant stated having significant stress from ongoing divorce and martial issues. While the applicant claimed to be traumatized by mortar attacks, the applicant immediately stopped wearing the Kevlar gear when it was no longer mandatory off the base. By the time the applicant was released from the program, the applicant seemed more calm and less depressed. In summary this Soldier appears to be overstating symptoms, but also has some depressive symptoms. Lastly, the applicant has a Personality Disorder NOS with Antisocial, Narcissistic, and Histrionic Traits. Narrative Summary and Patient Discharge Instructions, dated 8 July 2004, reflect the applicant was diagnosed with Axis 1: Adjustment disorder /MDEC, Axis 2: cluster B traits, Axis 4: Occupational/martial. Report of Medical Examination, dated 23 July 2004, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: PTSD/depression. MSE as described in previous paragraph 4j(1). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online Application; self-authored statement; three DD Forms 214; ARBA Letter; two VA Letters; MEDCOM Form 699-R, extract from AR 635-200; DA Form 2166-R, DD Form 2807-1; DA Form 3356; DA Form 3357; two ADRB letters; ADRB CRD AR20140019546. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has a loving spouse, who is also a disabled Veteran. The applicant has never been arrested or even had a traffic ticket in their life. 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 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends good service, including three combat tours. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends after witnessing several deaths, the applicant went to talk to the chaplain and was told to come back because the chaplain was busy. The applicant then sought help from doctors and was told the applicant needed to be sent back to Germany for an evaluation however the commander said no. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided Department of Veterans Letter, dated 30 November 2007, which reflects the applicant was referred to the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Clinical Team (PCT) by one of the treating clinicians at the Miami VA Healthcare System, who believes the applicant may be suffering from military related PTSD. The applicant also provided a Department of Veterans Affairs Letter, dated 17 September 2008, which reflects the applicant’s referral to the PCT was reviewed by the interdisciplinary treatment team. The applicant’s reported pattern of problems and symptoms appear to be consistent with individuals who suffer from military PTSD. As such, the applicant was enrolled in the PCT clinic for group therapy, individual therapy, and medication management. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 26 July 2004, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with Axis I: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotion and Conduct. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends after being hospitalized for about a month, it was recommended the applicant be discharged. The applicant was told the commander wanted the applicant to come back to Germany to clear, however the applicant was put on a plane and flown back to Iraq. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant has a loving spouse, who is also a disabled Veteran. The applicant has never been arrested or even had a traffic ticket in their life. 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: PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found numerous diagnoses while on Active Duty, ultimately diagnosed with PTSD through an IDES process, also service connected by the VA. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that per available ADRB records, for the period of service in question the applicant currently has a general discharge under AR 635-200 Chapter 14-12B for misconduct (JKA), which was issued on 12 December 2016. The BH advisor has reviewed available evidence associated with this ADRB case and finds evidence for partial mitigation given the established diagnosis of PTSD with onset during service. Specifically, PTSD mitigates offenses associated with AWOL/absenteeism due to avoidance behaviors associated with the natural course of PTSD, and offenses associated with disrespect and insubordination due to distrust of authority and irritability that are part of the natural course of PTSD. Of note is period of AWOL appears to be associated with CONUS psychiatric hospitalization. PTSD does not typically impair one’s ability to differentiate right from wrong and adhere to the right, therefore this condition would not mitigate offenses associated with communicating a threat and impersonation of an NCO. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that while the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the misconduct of AWOL, disrespect, and insubordination, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD outweighed the remaining unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – communicating a threat and impersonation of an NCO. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends good service, including three combat tours. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By communicating a threat and impersonating an NCO, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (2) The applicant contends after witnessing several deaths, the applicant went to talk to the chaplain and was told to come back the chaplain was busy. The applicant then sought help from doctors and was told the applicant needed to be sent back to Germany for an evaluation however the commander said no. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of, however the Board determined that there is insufficient evidence and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the separation authority. Ultimately, the Board determined that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. (3) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The Board considered this contention and determined that though there is mitigation of the AWOL, disrespect, and insubordination misconduct, the Board determined the applicant’s PTSD does not outweigh the applicant’s misconduct of communicating a threat or impersonation of an NCO. Thus, the discharge is proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends after being hospitalized for about a month, it was recommended the applicant be discharged. The applicant was told the commander wanted the applicant to come back to Germany to clear, however the applicant was put on a plane and flown back to Iraq. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of, however the Board determined that there is insufficient evidence and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the separation authority. Ultimately, the Board determined that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. (5) The applicant has a loving spouse, who is also a disabled Veteran. The applicant has never been arrested or even had a traffic ticket in their life. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case- by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in- service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service conduct does not outweigh the medically unmitigated portion of the basis for separation. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, while the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the misconduct of AWOL, disrespect, and insubordination, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD outweighed the remaining unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – communicating a threat and impersonation of an NCO. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s GD was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to HD. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and 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 AR20210002189 1