1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 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, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, this is a petition for de novo review based upon the Supplemental Guidance issued by the Secretary of Defense on 3 September 2014 (Hagel Memo). The applicant requests the in-service post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) diagnoses be considered along with the applicant’s honorable combat service and reenlistment while serving in Iraq. The applicant’s inpatient psychiatric hospitalization and suicide attempt show the applicant’s misconduct was not “willful” as the applicant met the definition of insanity. The applicant requests a discharge upgrade to honorable with a change in the narrative reason to “Secretarial Authority.” The applicant was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge, a few months after returning from Iraq. The applicant applied to the ADRB without legal representation on 20 May 2011 and was denied. The applicant had an in-service diagnosis of PTSD. The applicant is entitled to a de novo review. The other than honorable discharge was improper because the applicant met the definition of insanity under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) at the time of the misconduct which led to the discharge. There are no discharge records showing the applicant received legal advice prior to the discharge. The lack of records rebuts the presumption of regularity in discharge proceedings, which precludes the applicant from presenting impropriety arguments such as a Limited Use violation argument. The discharge was inequitable because the applicant’s overall service was honorable. The discharge was overly harsh considering the applicant’s in-service diagnoses of PTSD and multiple TBls, which mitigated the misconduct which occurred just prior to discharge. The command’s discretion could have been used to classify the applicant as an Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure, which would have resulted in an honorable discharge. Alcohol use is not willful misconduct unless it leads to disability or death. The applicant contends, in a self-authored statement, the applicant began drinking heavily and enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP). The ASAP referred the applicant to psychiatry. Major (MAJ) T. R. diagnosed the applicant with PTSD and prescribed Zoloft, Seroquel, Valium, Ativan, and Ambien. The applicant’s nightmares and stress escalated, and MAJ T. R. increased the dosage, but it did not help. One night the applicant drank alcohol, and because of the medications and mental state, the applicant had a psychotic episode and threatened to kill the family. The applicant attempted suicide by taking all the medications and was admitted to the Womack Army Medical Hospital’s Psychiatric ward. The doctor recommended the applicant be discharged under AR 635-200, Chapter 5-17. The applicant should have been given a medical discharge as recommended by the doctor. Counsel and the applicant further detail the contentions in allied documents submitted with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 19 January 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: Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 10 September 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 January 2004 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / GED / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 63S1P, Heavy Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 2 years, 7 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 17 January 2002 – 20 January 2004 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (1 September 2003 – 11 April 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status, 15 April 2003, reflects the applicant sustained a closed head injury, as a result of an Airborne jump on 11 February 2003. The injury was determined to be in line of duty. 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, paragraph 14-12c, with a narrative reason of Misconduct. The DD Form 214 was authenticated with the applicant’s signature. Orders 252-0304, dated 8 September 2004, as amended by Orders 253-0254, dated 9 September 2004, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 10 September 2004 from the Regular Army. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Applicant Provided and/or AMHHR Listed PTSD / TBI / Other Behavioral Health Conditions: The applicant provided: Medical Record Consultation Sheet, dated 9 June 2004, reflecting Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) requested a Psychiatry consult, reflecting the applicant was a second time self-referral to ASAP. The applicant reported being stressed at home and work and ASAP requested evaluation for depression, abuse versus dependence. Chronological Record of Medical Care, Neuropsychiatry Progress Note, dated 23 July and 3 August 2004, reflecting the impression of alcohol dependence; PTSD; and depression, not otherwise specified. The applicant was recently discharged from Womack Army Medical Center (WAMC) behavioral unit after worsening depression and episode of alcohol abuse. The WAMC, Record of Inpatient Treatment, dated 26 July 2004, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence; adjustment reaction with brief depressive reaction; cluster B traits / antisocial; insomnia; partner relational problem. Report of Medical History, dated 6 August 2004, reflecting the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Loss of conscientiousness; suicide attempt July 2001; admitted to hospital for suicide attempt; PTSD, Insomnia, Alcoholism. Report of Medical Examination, dated 6 August 2004, reflecting the applicant was evaluation for a medical board. The examining medical physician noted in the summary of defects and diagnoses section: Anxiety, PTSD, Alcoholism. The medical physician determined the applicant was qualified for service. The WAMC Patient Lab Inquiry, dated 23 August 2004, reflecting the applicant tested positive for (THC) for a sample collected on 8 August 2004; cocaine, which was reported on 8 August 2004; and amphetamines from a sample collected on 23 August 2004. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 293; Attachment to DD Form 293; Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Discharge Upgrade; self-authored statement; Hagel Memo; Carson Memo; Kurta Memo; ADRB Case Report and Directive Case Number AR20110011486; Army personnel records; Army medical and dental records; VA Records Management Center documents; National Personnel Records Center letter; attorney’s letters; and third party statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. ? 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 600-85 defines the Limited Use Policy and states unless waived under the circumstances listed in paragraph 10-13d, Limited Use Policy prohibits the use by the government of protected evidence against a Soldier in actions under the UCMJ or on the issue of characterization of service in administrative proceedings. Additionally, the policy limits the characterization of discharge to “Honorable” if protected evidence is used. Protected evidence under this policy includes a Soldier’s self-referral to BH for SUD treatment. e. 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 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. (6) 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. (7) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. f. Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes, provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). g. 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 a 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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the 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 signature. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations, at the time, for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct,” and the separation code is “JKQ.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends PTSD and TBI affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating a diagnosis of alcohol dependence; adjustment reaction, with brief depressive reaction; cluster B traits / antisocial; insomnia; and a partner relational problem. The applicant was prescribed medication. The applicant underwent a medical examination and the examining medical physician noted the applicant had a head injury with a loss of conscientious, a suicide attempt, PTSD, insomnia, and alcoholism. The applicant provided a third party statement to support the applicant’s contention of having symptoms of PTSD after returning from deployment. The AMHRR contains a Line of Duty Investigation, dated 15 April 2003, which shows the applicant sustained a closed head injury as a result of an airborne jump on 11 February 2003. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the applicant met the definition of insanity under the Uniform Code of Military Justice at the time of the misconduct, which led to the discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation to show the applicant was determined to be insane by medical personnel. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention the applicant was insane at the time of the misconduct. The applicant contends the command’s discretion could have been used to classify the applicant as an Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure or to process the applicant for a medical discharge. The AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the applicant’s discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. Chapter 9, Alcohol or Other Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Failure, does not prevent the separation of a Soldier who has been referred to an alcohol or drug rehabilitation program under any other provision of this regulation. The applicant contends there are no discharge records showing the veteran received legal advice prior to discharge. The applicant did not provide any evidence to show the applicant was not provided the opportunity to consult with counsel. Army Regulation 635-200, provides when a Soldier is subject to separation, the Soldier has to right to consult with military counsel. The Soldier may also consult with civilian counsel at the Soldiers own expense. The applicant may waive the right to an attorney. The AMHRR is void of the election of rights and/or a waiver to consult with legal counsel. The applicant contends the lack of records rebuts the presumption of regularity in discharge proceedings and precludes the applicant from presenting impropriety arguments such as a Limited Use violation argument. Title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, section 70.8(a) provides if the official records relevant to the discharge review are not available at the agency having custody of the records, the applicant shall be so notified and requested to provide such information and documents as may be desired in support of the request for discharge review. A period of not less than 30 days shall be allowed for such documents to be submitted. At the expiration of this period, the review may be conducted with information available. There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs. This presumption can be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant has not presented any evidence to show the command used limited use information in the separation proceedings, which would warrant an honorable discharge. The applicant contends the discharge was overly harsh considering veteran’s in-service diagnoses of PTSD and multiple TBls, which mitigated the misconduct which occurred just prior to discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of the circumstances which led to the applicant’s discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, provides a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because applicant’s overall service was honorable, to include a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge 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’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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, Depression, Anxiety, Adjustment Disorder, TBI, Panic Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found evidence of in service diagnoses of PTSD, Depression, Anxiety, and an Adjustment Disorder. Applicant self-asserts TBI existing during military service, which was diagnosed post service by the VA. There is no evidence that applicant's post-service diagnosis of Panic Disorder existed during military 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 there is evidence of multiple possible mitigating BH conditions to include in service diagnoses of PTSD, Depression, Anxiety, Adjustment Disorder, and TBI. However, the basis for separation is not contained in the file, so medical mitigation cannot be determined. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, to include the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, the Board could not determine the applicant’s potentially mitigating diagnoses of PTSD, Depression, Anxiety, Adjustment Disorder, and TBI mitigate or outweigh the basis of separation without knowing the actual basis of separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the basis of separation is unknown, the Board is unable to determine whether the applicant’s mitigating factors outweigh the discharge. Thus, based on the available information, the discharge is proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends PTSD and TBI affected behavior which led to the discharge, thus making the discharge overly harsh. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member’s discharge characterization. In this case, the Board considered this contention and though the applicant has potentially mitigating BH diagnoses, the Board was unable to determine if they outweigh the basis of separation without knowing the actual basis of separation. (3) The applicant contends that due to the applicant’s PTSD and TBI resulting in hospitalization, the applicant met the definition of insanity under the Uniform Code of Military Justice at the time of the misconduct, which led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and noted that after the applicant’s hospitalization, the applicant was evaluated for a medical board and found fit for duty. The applicant did not provide evidence from a qualified medical professional to provide merit to the claim of insanity. While the applicant is diagnosed with PTSD and TBI, without knowledge of the basis of separation, the Board is unable to determine if BH diagnoses outweigh the discharge. Thus, based on the available evidence, the discharge is proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends the command’s discretion could have been used to classify the applicant as an Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure or to process the applicant for a medical discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that absent the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the separation, the discharge was proper based on Army Regulation 635-200 which stipulates, in pertinent part, that commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. (5) The applicant contends there are no discharge records showing the applicant received legal advice prior to discharge, and that the lack of records rebuts the presumption of regularity in discharge proceedings and precludes the applicant from presenting impropriety arguments such as a Limited Use violation argument. The Board considered this contention and determined that Title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, section 70.8(a) provides if the official records relevant to the discharge review are not available at the agency having custody of the records, the applicant shall be so notified and requested to provide such information and documents as may be desired in support of the request for discharge review. A period of not less than 30 days shall be allowed for such documents to be submitted. At the expiration of this period, the review may be conducted with information available. There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs. This presumption can be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant has not presented any evidence to show that the command used limited use information in the separation proceedings, which would warrant an honorable discharge. (6) The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because applicant’s overall service was honorable, to include a combat tour. 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, however the Board was unable to determine if the applicant’s service outweighed the basis of separation without knowing the actual basis of separation. (7) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the Board could not determine whether the applicant’s potentially mitigating diagnoses of PTSD, Depression, Anxiety, Adjustment Disorder, and TBI mitigate or outweigh the basis of separation without knowing the actual basis of separation. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210002313 1