1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: 1. 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, narrative reason change to SA with corresponding SPD code of JFF. The counsel on behalf of the applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge is both improper and inequitable. Improper because the discharge is based upon procedural errors, which were prejudicial to the applicant during the discharge process. The discharge was based on the recommendations of the commanders in which protected limited use evidence was improperly introduced in the form of the results of a drug test collected during an emergency medical care solely for an actual drug overdose. That alone entitles the applicant to an honorable discharge as mandated by Army regulations. The applicant was also denied due process during the discharge process when the installation behavioral health personnel refused to perform a PTSD and mTBI screening on the applicant before the administrative separation, in violation of Army regulations and policy guidance. The discharge is inequitable based on the totality of evidence relating to the capability to serve and quality of service, which mitigates the misconduct leading to the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Specifically, the applicant's mental health conditions, including notable service-connected PTSD and major depressive disorder resulting from the combat experiences and existing during the service, were significant contributing factors leading to the misconduct underlying the discharge. Despite struggling with PTSD, the applicant served honorably and faithfully, including serving in combat for a preponderance of the service, nearly all the period of enlistment. The applicant's post-service conduct has been beneficial to both the community and the applicant and is more reflective of the overall honorable service than the misconduct attributable to the PTSD while serving in the Army. Considering the sufficiency of the foregoing reasons of impropriety and inequity, the Board should upgrade the applicant's characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable, correct the narrative reason for the discharge from Misconduct (Serious Offense), under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, to Secretarial Authority, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 5-3, and change the corresponding separation code from JKK to JFF. An upgrade would enable the applicant to obtain help with the PTSD from VA and increase the acceptability for certain civilian employment. The Counsel further details the contentions in an allied legal brief provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 26 October 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD partially mitigating some of the misconduct and the government's violation of Limited Use policy. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14- 12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. Please see Section 9 (of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 2. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 15 June 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 April 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed to obey a lawful general order by wrongfully possessing and using SPICE. The applicant reported to formation with an unauthorized haircut. On numerous occasions while on extra duty, the applicant failed to perform duties. The applicant made a false official statement. The applicant wrongfully used cocaine. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 7 May 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 7 May 2012, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 June 2012 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 July 2009 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 11 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (1 November 2010 - 20 October 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NATOMDL, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 10 July 2011, for failing to obey lawful order, to wit: a policy letter, by wrongfully possessing and using a substance used for the primary purpose of inducing excitement, intoxication, and/or stupefaction of the central nervous system on 5 July 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $734 pay per month for two months; and extra duty for 45 days. CG Article 15, dated 27 March 2012, for making a false official statement with intent to deceive to SSG M. B. on 28 January 2012. The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 7 days (suspended). FG Article 15, dated 7 May 2012, for wrongfully using cocaine (between 10 and 13 February 2012). The punishment for this Article 15 is NIF. Patient Laboratory Results Inquiry with print date of 23 February 2012, reflects a positive urinalysis results for cocaine, with no further information. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 February 2012, reflects the applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The MSE provided a diagnosis of "AXIS I," an "Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood." Report of Medical History, dated 21 March 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: PTSD/Depression, counseling for abusing drugs issues, and attempted suicide in July 2009, 13 February 2012, and 27 February 2012. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and an attorney-brief (the attachments listed as exhibits in the index are NIF). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant's post-service conduct includes an effort to improve the overall well-being by coping with the PTSD in a positive manner and developing skills to advance the professional career endeavors; the applicant takes great pride in excelling at current employment as an assistant manager with Amazon; the applicant has used the medical training received in the Army to save a life on two separate occasions, including resolving disputes and mentoring children in the community; and exhibiting great compassion by providing emotional, physical, and financial support to a friend in need. 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 information concerning drug or alcohol abuse or possession of drugs incidental to personal use, including the results of a drug or alcohol test, collected as a result of a Soldier's emergency medical care solely for an actual or possible alcohol or other drug overdose. 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) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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: 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 contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," 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 the separation code (SPD) should be changed. Separation codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations the SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, is "JKQ." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the 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 SPD code to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the discharge is improper because the discharge with procedural errors were prejudicial to the applicant during the discharge process, in which protected limited use evidence was improperly introduced in the form of the results of a drug test collected during an emergency medical care solely for an actual drug overdose. The applicant contends the discharge is improper because the discharge with procedural errors were prejudicial to the applicant during the discharge process, in which the applicant was denied due process during the discharge process when the installation behavioral health personnel refused to perform a PTSD and mTBI screening on the applicant before the separation, in violation of Army regulations and policy guidance. The applicant contends the discharge is inequitable because the totality of evidence relating to the capability to serve and quality of service mitigates the misconduct leading to the characterization of service, and the applicant's mental health conditions, including notable service-connected PTSD and major depressive disorder resulting from the combat experiences and existing during the service were significant contributing factors leading to the misconduct underlying the discharge. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service PTSD and depression, and an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 29 February 2012, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the discharge is inequitable because despite struggling with PTSD, the applicant served honorably and faithfully, including serving in combat for a preponderance of the service, nearly all the period of enlistment. The applicant contends the discharge is inequitable because the applicant's post-service conduct has been beneficial to both the community and the applicant, and is more reflective of the overall honorable service than the misconduct attributable to the PTSD while serving in the Army. 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. The applicant contends an upgrade would enable the applicant to obtain help with the PTSD from VA. Eligibility for veterans' benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill 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 would increase the acceptability for certain civilian employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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 with depressed mood and disturbance of emotions; Depression; PTSD; mild TBI. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the diagnoses of Adjustment DO and Depression were made while the applicant was on active duty. The VA has established 100% service connection for PTSD and they have documented applicant suffered a TBI during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that since there is an association between PTSD/TBI and use of illicit drugs to self-medicate symptoms, there is a connection to the applicant's wrongful uses of cocaine and spice and possession of Spice. As there is an association between PTSD/TBI and poor work performance, there is mitigation for the applicant's failure to perform duties on numerous occasions. Neither condition, PTSD nor TBI, mitigates reporting to formation with an unauthorized haircut or making a false official statement as neither condition affects one's ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board's application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's Adjustment Disorders, PTSD, or mTBI outweighed the unmitigated basis for applicant's separation - reporting with an unauthorized haircut or making a false official statement. Specifically, the applicant's false official statement was lying about driving which caused injury to deceive and stay out of trouble. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason and accompanying SPD for the discharge needs changed. 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 determined that that relief was warranted as there is evidence of a Limited Use policy violation warranting a characterization upgrade. After the partial medical mitigation of the applicant's PTSD/mTBI, the remaining offenses of having an authorized haircut and the applicant's false official statement were determined to be relatively minor, warranting a narrative reason upgrade as well. However, the mitigation and Limited Use violation did not fully excuse the applicant from committing the offenses, so the Board determined that the requested Secretarial Authority is not warranted. (2) The applicant contends the discharge is improper because the discharge with procedural errors were prejudicial to the applicant during the discharge process, in which protected use evidence was improperly introduced in the form of the results of a drug test collected during an emergency medical care solely for an actual drug overdose. The Board considered this contention and determined that there was a Limited Use violation, which warranted a narrative reason upgrade to Honorable. (3) The applicant contends the discharge is improper because the applicant was denied due process during the discharge process when the installation behavioral health personnel refused to perform a PTSD and mTBI screening on the applicant before the separation, in violation of Army regulations and policy guidance; and the applicant's PTSD and OBH from combat experiences were significant contributing factors leading to the misconduct. 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 determined that that relief was warranted. After the partial medical mitigation of the applicant's PTSD/mTBI, the remaining offenses of having an authorized haircut and the applicant's false official statement were determined to be relatively minor, warranting a narrative reason upgrade. (4) The applicant contends the discharge is inequitable because the applicant served honorably and faithfully despite struggling with PTSD, including serving in combat for a preponderance of the service, nearly all the period of enlistment. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD/mTBI mitigating the drug use and poor work performance and the Limited Use violation warranting an upgrade. The totality of the applicant's service record was considered and weighed against the unmitigated offenses of having an authorized haircut and the applicant's false official statement, and determined to be relatively minor. (5) The applicant contends the discharge is inequitable because the applicant's post- service conduct has been beneficial to both the community and the applicant and is more reflective of the overall honorable service than the misconduct attributable to the PTSD while serving in the Army. 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 supports the Board's decision that the unmitigated offenses were minor, warranted a narrative reason upgrade (6) The applicant contends an upgrade would enable the applicant to obtain help with the PTSD from VA. 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 (7) The applicant contends an upgrade would increase the acceptability for certain civilian employment. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD partially mitigating some of the misconduct and the government's violation of Limited Use policy. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because there is evidence that the command violated the Limited Use policy when it used a self-initiated drug screening as part of the discharge process. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) since the applicant's PTSD/mTBI mitigated the applicant's drug use and poor work performance, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. Though mitigated, the applicant's misconduct is not fully excused so an upgrade to Secretarial Authority is not warranted. However, with the partial mitigation, the remaining misconduct of having an unauthorized haircut and making a false official statement are relatively minor, warranted an upgrade. The decision to lie about driving which resulted in injury was weighed heavily by the Board, and the applicant's attempt to deceive to negate personal responsibility maintains the narrative reason for separation below the appropriate level for the requested Secretarial Authority upgrade. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation and the mitigating conditions are also service- limiting. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210002369 1