1.	Applicant's Name: 
   a.	Application Date: 26 April 2021

   b.	Date Received: 26 April 2021

   c.	Counsel: None

2.	REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: 

   a.	Applicant's Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period 
under review is Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to 
honorable. 

The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was not adequate because it was 
based on hearsay and on an isolated incident in 64 months of service with no adverse action. At 
the advice of an attorney to take a Chapter 10, the applicant accepted the discharge, although not 
understanding the extent of the impact the discharge would cause. The applicant was never tried 
or convicted of any wrongdoing. The Chapter 10 was granted because it was a case of hearsay. 
At the time, the applicant felt hopeless and depressed, because legal was not assisting. The 
issues the applicant had were never addressed by the military. The applicant was struggling with 
suddenly losing the rank of an NCO and lacked self-esteem, self-worth, and had anxiety. The 
applicant was sexually assaulted in the military by a senior NCO twice the size, which caused 
the lower extremities never functioning the same again; recurring nightmares of the incident; 
and sleeping only on blow-up mattresses and avoid sleeping on a bed. The applicant is unable 
to qualify for veteran-owned and operated programs because of the discharge, and it prevents 
applying for certain federal jobs. The applicant sacrificed and served the country honorably by 
working hard and going to battle with rockets being shot every day. The applicant also earned a 
battlefield promotion to E-5. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied self-
authored statement provided with the application.

   b.	Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 7 July 2023, and by a 5-0 
vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and 
quality of service, in addition to the applicant's BH conditions of PTSD secondary to MST, MDD 
and history of psychosis, mitigating the basis for separation - false official statement, unlawfully 
obtaining items of value as a result of communicating a threat, and impeding investigation. 
Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of 
service to General, Under Honorable Conditions and changed to the separation authority to AR 
635-200, paragraph 14-12a.

Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. 

(Board member names available upon request)

3.	DISCHARGE DETAILS:

   a.	Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / 
AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions

   b.	Date of Discharge: 15 October 2014

   c.	Separation Facts: The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is 
void of the complete case separation file. However, the servicing Office of the Staff Judge 
Advocate provided the court-martial case packet which included the documents described 
below at 3c(1).

       (1)	Date and Charges Preferred (DD Forms 458, Charge Sheets): On 18 March 2014 
and 25 April 2014, the following charges were preferred against the applicant: 

	Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 107. The Specification: on 30 November 2010, the 
applicant made a false official statement to Special Agent (SA) L. B. and SA S. J. H., to wit: the 
applicant did not receive anything else from A. TL. or J. B. besides gift cards.

	Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 127. The Specification: between 23 August and 
23 November 2010, with intent unlawfully to obtain something of value, to wit: money and gift 
cards, communicate to A. TL., a threat to dispute charges made to the applicant's Government 
Purchase Card if the applicant did not get paid, causing A. TL. to lose money.

       (2)		The Additional Charge: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134. The Specification: 
between 1 and 31 December 2010, wrongfully endeavor to impede an investigation in the case 
of US v. (the applicant), by telling A. TL. the investigators were told, only gift cards were received 
and for A. TL. to say the same, or words to that effect, and said conduct was to the prejudice of 
good order and discipline in the armed forces and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the 
armed forces.

       (3)	Legal Consultation Date: NIF

       (4)	Basis for Separation: NIF

       (5)	Recommended Characterization: NIF

       (6)	Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 September 2014 / Under Other 
Than Honorable Conditions

4.	SERVICE DETAILS:

   a.	Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 June 2012 / 4 years 

   b.	Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 40 / three years of college / 112

   c.	Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 
5 years, 9 months, 2 days 

   d.	Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 14 January 2009 - 31 May 2014 / HD 

   e.	Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA, Korea / Afghanistan (10 June 2011 - 
2 November 2011)

   f.	Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, AAM-3, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, 
NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL

   g.	Performance Ratings: 30 January 2012 - 16 August 2012 / Among the Best
                           16 August 2012 - 1 October 2013 / Among the Best

   h.	Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous 
paragraph 3c, with allied investigative documents.

The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 17 October 2014, reflects the applicant was 
flagged for Law Enforcement Investigation (MA), effective 27 February 2013; was ineligible for 
reenlistment due to Adverse Action Flag (9B). The Assignment Eligibility Availability code 
reflects the applicant was eligible for PCS reassignment, subject to normal PCS TOS 
restrictions, and there was no termination date. The applicant was reduced from E-5 to E-1 
effective 24 September 2014.

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, Chapter 10, with a narrative 
reason of In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. The DD Form 214 was authenticated with the 
applicant's electronic signature. The applicant had no time lost. 

CID Report of Investigation - Final, dated 22 January 2015, reflects an investigation of a reported 
Rape of an Adult by Force occurring in April 2012, at an unknown location in Korea, by the 
applicant who reported being raped to her lawyer, was closed because of insufficient evidence. 
The incident was reported to the CID on 19 September 2014. The investigation revealed during 
an interview, the applicant declined to provide any information pertaining to the incident, the 
identification of the perpetrator, nor the date or location.

   i.	Lost Time / Mode of Return: None

   j.	Behavioral Health Condition(s): 

       (1)	Applicant provided: The applicant's third-party statement contains information on 
the applicant being sexually assault while serving at Camp Humphrey, Korea in 2013.

       (2)	AMHRR Listed: None

5.	APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; 13 third-party 
letters; Coppin State University Letter addressed to applicant's child; and Email re: ARCOM 
comments.

6.	POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is pursuing a bachelor's degree in 
Occupational Safety and Health; and, has obtained full time employment as a purchasing agent.

7.	STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): 

   a.	Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides 
for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) 
within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the 
Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when 
considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 
(PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal 
abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, 
as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, 
or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including 
PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the 
guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge 
Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, 
spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma.

   b.	Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 
and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names 
(2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing 
the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 
2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. 

       (1)	Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the 
Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when 
considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health 
conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will 
be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in 
whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual 
assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans 
Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or 
sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than 
honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a 
civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual 
assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the 
time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health 
condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge 
might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization.

       (2)	Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to 
have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. 
In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment 
may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be 
considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of 
service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases 
in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization 
of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, 
PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the 
misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. 
PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing 
evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal 
relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 

   c.	Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board) sets forth the policies and 
procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, 
reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years 
of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of 
the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10, United 
States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. 

   d.	Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel.

       (1)	Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or 
description of separation. 



       (2)	Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is 
appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of 
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious 
that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. 

       (3)	Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under 
honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not 
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 

       (4)	Paragraph 3-7c states Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is an 
administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be 
issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based 
on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a 
significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. 

       (5)	Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense 
or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a 
request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request 
may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the 
individual's admission of guilt. 

       (6)	Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions 
normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, 
the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall 
record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II.)

   e.	Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the 
specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, 
and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "KFS" as 
the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of 
Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. 

   f.	Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, 
governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons 
into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per 
DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization 
of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. 
Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. 
Table 3-1 defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last 
period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed 
bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of 
service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for 
enlistment. 

8.	SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for 
upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28.

The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's Army Military Human Resource 
Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were 
carefully reviewed.


The applicant's AMHRR is void of the complete specific 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 authenticated with the applicant's electronic signature. The applicant's DD Form 214 
indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, by 
reason of In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, with a characterization of service of Under Other 
Than Honorable Conditions.

The available evidence in the applicant's AMHRR confirms the applicant was charged with the 
commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Although not 
available in the AMHRR, the applicant would have, in consultation with legal counsel, voluntarily 
requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial 
by court-martial. In this request, the applicant would have admitted guilt to the offense, or a 
lesser included offense, and indicated an understanding an under other than honorable 
conditions discharge could be received, and the discharge would have a significant effect on 
eligibility for veterans' benefits. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received 
by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. 

The applicant contends the discharge was granted because it was based on a case of hearsay. 
The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious 
actions by the command. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's 
statement, to support the contention.

The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated 
incident. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5c states that the circumstances in which the 
conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a 
characterization.

The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans' benefits, because 
current discharge would not allow the applicant to qualify for a veteran-owned and operated 
program. Eligibility for veterans' 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 certain or 
better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment 
opportunities.

The applicant contends at the time of the discharge, the applicant felt hopeless and depressed, 
and had been sexually assaulted by a senior NCO. The applicant's AMHRR contains no 
documentation of any behavioral health diagnosis. The applicant's evidence contains a third-
party statement rendered by a chaplain assistant on having been confided in and having a 
conversation with the applicant on the assault incident. A CID Report reflecting an investigation 
of a reported rape incident occurring in April 2012, was closed because of insufficient evidence 
based on the applicant declining to provide information on the incident, identification of the 
perpetrator, or the date and location of its occurrence. On 24 January 2018, the applicant was 
notified of the CID report and provided the opportunity to submit comments but the applicant did 
not submit a response.

The applicant contends good service by working hard and sacrificing, including a combat tour, 
and receiving a battlefield promotion to E-5. 

The third-party statements provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant's character 
and performance and recognizes the applicant's good conduct after leaving the Army. 

The applicant contends obtaining employment and pursuing a bachelor's degree. 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: adjustment 
disorders, MDD/depression, PTSD (service connected) secondary to MST, with treatment for 
associated symptoms and depression while on active duty.

   (2)	Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's 
Medical Advisor found that applicant applicant's adjustment disorders, MDD/Depression, 
history of psychosis, and PTSD secondary to MST existed during the applicant's service.

       (3)	Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The 
Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant is SC for 
PTSD secondary to MST with treatment for associated symptoms under diagnoses to include 
depression and nightmare disorder while on active duty.  Major Depressive Disorder is also 
considered present at time of service/discharge given available records.  The medical advisor 
appreciates applicant's PTSD and depression diagnoses among other sequalae of history of 
MST, however PTSD/depression and the associated MST do not impact one's ability to 
differentiate right from wrong; there is no nexus between the diagnosis/circumstance and 
making false official statement with intent to deceive, unlawfully obtaining items of value and the 
associated communicating a threat resulting in loss of money by another party, or impeding an 
investigation. The chronology of the records also suggests the disciplinary issues predate the 
assault and subsequent PTSD/associated mood symptoms. Subsequent VA records reference 
symptoms of psychosis but there is no evidence of psychosis at the time of service. 

       (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 the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's behavioral health 
conditions do not outweigh the applicant's medically unmitigated offenses of making a false 
official statement, communicating a threat to unlawfully obtain items of value, or impeding an 
investigation.  


   b.	Response to Contention(s): 

       (1)	The applicant contends the discharge was based on a case of hearsay. The Board 
considered this contention, however there was insufficient evidence to ascertain whether or not 
the case was based-on hearsay.  Regardless, the board voted to upgrade the characterization 
of service based on the applicant's length and quality of service, in addition to the applicant's 
BH conditions of PTSD secondary to MST, MDD and history of psychosis, mitigating the basis 
for separation. However, the Board found that the applicant's misconduct of false official 
statement, unlawfully obtaining items of value as a result of communicating a threat, and 
impeding investigation is not fully outweighed due to the nature of the offenses, and this 
misconduct not being medically mitigated by the applicant's BH conditions, or outweighed by 
any of the applicant's contentions, the Board determined that an upgrade to Honorable was not 
warranted.

       (2)	The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an 
isolated incident. The Board considered this contention, however there were three such 
incidents.  Regardless, the board voted to upgrade the characterization of service based on the 
applicant's length and quality of service, in addition to the applicant's BH conditions of PTSD 
secondary to MST, MDD and history of psychosis, mitigating the basis for separation. However, 
the Board found that the applicant's misconduct of false official statement, unlawfully obtaining 
items of value as a result of communicating a threat, and impeding investigation is not fully 
outweighed due to the nature of the offenses, and this misconduct not being medically mitigated 
by the applicant's BH conditions, or outweighed by any of the applicant's contentions, the Board 
determined that an upgrade to Honorable was not warranted.

       (3)	The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans' benefits, 
because current discharge would not allow the applicant to qualify for a veteran-owned and 
operated program. The Board 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.

       (4)	The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain 
certain or better employment. The Board considered this contention and determined that the 
Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities.

       (5)	The applicant contends at the time of the discharge, the applicant felt hopeless and 
depressed, and had been sexually assaulted by a senior NCO. The Board considered this 
contention, but voted to upgrade the characterization of service based on the applicant's length 
and quality of service, in addition to the applicant's BH conditions of PTSD secondary to MST, 
MDD and history of psychosis, mitigating the basis for separation. However, the Board found 
that the applicant's misconduct of false official statement, unlawfully obtaining items of value as 
a result of communicating a threat, and impeding investigation is not fully outweighed due to the 
nature of the offenses, and this misconduct not being medically mitigated by the applicant's BH 
conditions, or outweighed by any of the applicant's contentions, the Board determined that an 
upgrade to Honorable was not warranted.








       (6)	The applicant contends good service by working hard and sacrificing, including a 
combat tour, and receiving a battlefield promotion to E-5. The Board considered this contention, 
but voted to upgrade the characterization of service based on the applicant's length and quality 
of service, in addition to the applicant's BH conditions of PTSD secondary to MST, MDD and 
history of psychosis, mitigating the basis for separation. However, the Board found that the 
applicant's misconduct of false official statement, unlawfully obtaining items of value as a result 
of communicating a threat, and impeding investigation is not fully outweighed due to the nature 
of the offenses, and this misconduct not being medically mitigated by the applicant's BH 
conditions, or outweighed by any of the applicant's contentions, the Board determined that an 
upgrade to Honorable was not warranted.

       (7)	The applicant contends obtaining employment and pursuing a bachelor's degree. 
The Board considered the applicant's post-service conduct, but voted to upgrade the 
characterization of service based on the applicant's length and quality of service, in addition to 
the applicant's BH conditions of PTSD secondary to MST, MDD and history of psychosis, 
mitigating the basis for separation. However, the Board found that the applicant's misconduct of 
false official statement, unlawfully obtaining items of value as a result of communicating a 
threat, and impeding investigation is not fully outweighed due to the nature of the offenses, and 
this misconduct not being medically mitigated by the applicant's BH conditions, or outweighed 
by any of the applicant's contentions, the Board determined that an upgrade to Honorable was 
not warranted.

   c.	The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and 
quality of service, in addition to the applicant's BH conditions of PTSD secondary to MST, MDD 
and history of psychosis, mitigating the basis for separation - false official statement, unlawfully 
obtaining items of value as a result of communicating a threat, and impeding investigation. 
Therefore, the Board voted to grant partial relief. 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 General, 
Under Honorable Conditions based on the applicant's length and quality of service, in addition 
to the applicant's BH conditions of PTSD secondary to MST, MDD and history of psychosis, 
mitigating the basis for separation - false official statement, unlawfully obtaining items of value 
as a result of communicating a threat, and impeding investigation. Thus, the prior 
characterization is no longer appropriate. However, the Board found that the applicant's 
misconduct of false official statement, unlawfully obtaining items of value as a result of 
communicating a threat, and impeding investigation is not fully outweighed due to the nature of 
the offenses, and this misconduct not being medically mitigated by the applicant's BH 
conditions, or outweighed by any of the applicant's contentions, and there being insufficient 
evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command, the Board determined that an 
upgrade to Honorable was not warranted as the applicant's overall service fell below the level of 
meritorious service to warrant an Honorable Discharge.

       (2)	The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or 
accompanying SPD code, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and 
equitable.

       (3)	The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural 
and substantive requirements of the regulation.

10.	BOARD ACTION DIRECTED:

	a.	Issue a New DD-214:  Yes 

	b.	Change Characterization to:  General, Under Honorable Conditions

	c.	Change Reason / SPD Code to:  No Change

	d.	Change RE Code to:  No Change 

e.	Change Authority to:  No Change  

Authenticating Official:
 
Legend:


AWOL - Absent Without Leave
AMHRR - Army Military Human 
Resource Record
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge
BH - Behavioral Health
CG - Company Grade Article 15
CID - Criminal Investigation 
Division
ELS - Entry Level Status
FG - Field Grade Article 15
GD - General Discharge 
HS - High School 
HD - Honorable Discharge
IADT - Initial Active Duty Training
MP - Military Police
MST - Military Sexual Trauma
N/A - Not applicable
NCO - Noncommissioned Officer
NIF - Not in File
NOS - Not Otherwise Specified
OAD - Ordered to Active Duty
OBH (I) - Other Behavioral 
Health (Issues)
OMPF - Official Military 
Personnel File
PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress 
Disorder
RE - Re-entry
SCM - Summary Court Martial
SPCM - Special Court Martial 
SPD - Separation Program 
Designator 
TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury
UNC - Uncharacterized 
Discharge
UOTHC - Under Other Than 
Honorable Conditions
VA - Department of Veterans 
Affairs



ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE
AR20210002219
1