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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, an untreated psychiatric condition contributed to the applicant’s behavior during the separation from the spouse. The applicant returned from Iraq in 2005 and had marital difficulties which continued to worsen until the applicant’s nervous breakdown in 2009. The applicant was transferred to Laurel Ridge Inpatient Treatment Facility for intensive inpatient care. A psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with bipolar disorder and the applicant was placed on lithium and the drug lamotrigine was later added to the regimen. The psychiatrist did not reaffirm the diagnosis, but the medications were well known for patients with bipolar disorder. The marriage appeared to stabilize the year the applicant was on medication. The applicant arrived at Fort Jackson in 2010, came off of the medications, and was placed in a leadership role as Chief of Surgery and Specialty Care. The stress level was high, and the marriage began to have serious issues again. In 2012, the applicant requested to be placed back on the medications, but the doctor chose counseling instead. The applicant had the illicit affair on the a website in 2012. The applicant’s spouse found the emails and held the emails over the applicant’s head for nearly two years, until the applicant filed for divorce. Following the advice of the attorney, the applicant removed the spouse’s name from the bank account, which was poor judgment. The applicant was honest about the transgressions, losing the Army career and retirement. The investigating officer recommended the applicant receive a mental status examination, but it was never done. The applicant was involuntarily discharged after a show cause board, which was flawed because one of the members did not outrank the applicant. The applicant resigned because the process would have been drawn out and painful. The applicant acknowledges the actions were inconsistent with the conduct expected of an officer. The diagnosis should have been honored by the military psychiatrists, but for whatever reasons (systemic phobias surrounding mental health conditions), the applicant was not diagnosed despite being treated for it. The phobias and poor Army regulations directly resulted in the applicant’s mental health condition not being diagnosed, treated, and not properly factored into the applicant’s involuntary separation from the Army. After the discharge, the applicant was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and receives 100 percent disability rating for mental health disorders, including bipolar I and PTSD symptoms, by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The applicant has returned to a medication regiment and receives counseling. The applicant lives apart from the former spouse and coparents. The applicant has three children: One in Vanderbilt Law School, one at Clemson University studying Chemistry and Pre- medicine, and one in senior high school with plans to attend Clemson University next year. The applicant maintained employment as an anesthesiologist at Aiken Regional Medical Center for over five years. The applicant further details the contentions in the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 17 November 2022, 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Paragraphs 4-2b and 4-24a (1) / BNC / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 20 January 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 February 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, because of the following reasons: Substantiated derogatory activity resulting in a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 4 September 2014, which was filed in the Army Military Human Resource Record. Conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the above-referenced item. (3) Legal Consultation Date: 11 August 2015 (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): On 21 August 2015, the applicant waived the right to appear before a board of officers and requested Resignation in Lieu of Elimination. (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 10 September 2015, the GOSCA recommended approval of the applicant’s request for resignation in lieu of elimination. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) DA Ad Hoc Review Board: The AD Hoc review board considered the applicant’s request for resignation in lieu of elimination in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4. (7) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 January 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The separation authority accepted the applicant’s resignation in lieu of elimination based on AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 8 June 1998 / 8 years b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 26 / Medical Doctor c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-5 / 60N, Anesthesiologist / 21 years, 8 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 7 May 1994 – 7 June 1998 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (7 November 2004 – 4 May 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: MSM-3, ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 1 July 1998 – 23 June 2002 / Best Qualified 1 July 2003 – 30 June 2004 / Best Qualified 1 July 2004 – 5 November 2004 / Best Qualified 6 November 2005 – 1 July 2009 / Best Qualified 2 July 2009 – 1 July 2010 / Fully Qualified 2 July 2010 – 24 February 2014 / Best Qualified 25 February 2014 – 21 May 2015 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Richland County Sheriff’s Incident Report, dated 7 December 2013, reflects the applicant was under investigation for aggravated assault when according to the applicant’s spouse, a visitor and the applicant’s spouse were sitting on the patio. The applicant punched through the rear glass window and entered inside telling the spouse and the friend to get out of the house and threatening to fight them. The spouse grabbed the house phone, but the applicant ripped it from the spouse’s hands and broke it apart. The spouse and the visitor fled the home and the spouse’s vehicle with the spouse’s cell phone. When the deputies returned the applicant had left. The case was closed because the spouse refused to cooperate with the investigation. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 17 June 2014, for being flagged for a commander’s investigation. Memorandum, subject: Informal Commander’s Inquiry Concerning Allegations of Misconduct by [Applicant], dated 14 July 2014, reflects the investigating officer found: There was evidence to support the applicant committed adultery and probably multiple times. The investigating officer could not make any conclusions as to whether the applicant used government equipment to facilitate the relationships with other people. It was reasonable for the Investigating officer to believe the applicant may have threatened the spouse verbally or slandered the spouse’s character previously and therefore caused mental anguish. The fact the spouse had to leave the house to make the 911 call suggest the spouse did not feel comfortable trying to make the call in the applicant’s presence. It is clear, initially, the applicant did not provide the financial support required in the absence of a financial support agreement or court order in accordance with AR 608-99. The investigating officer recommended a 15-6 Investigation be conducted; discharge from the service; command referral for a behavioral evaluation; formal reprimand / counseling; attend anger management class; financial counseling; and the applicant to provide proof of financial support. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 4 September 2014, reflects the applicant had sexual intercourse with a person not the applicant’s spouse. The applicant admitted guilt to Colonel M. H., Commander, Moncrief Army Community Hospital. The applicant placed a dating website for married individuals called Ashley Madison, which motto is “Life is short. Have an affair.” On 7 December 2013, the applicant, acted in a manner unbecoming an officer by committing acts of mental abuse against the spouse, threatening the spouse and the spouse’s guest, and breaking the spouse’s phone and preventing the spouse from calling 911. The conduct was in violation of Articles 133 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Letter, dated 11 August 2015, from T. C., Esquire, the applicant’s civilian attorney at the time of the administrative separation board proceedings, reflects the Board of Inquiry was conducted, but the proceedings were returned to the general officer show cause authority because not every member of the board was senior in rank and grade to the applicant. In light of this development, the applicant decided to offer a resignation in lieu of the separation board. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Adult Prevent and Chronic Care Flowsheet, with onset date between 9 September 2004 and 26 February 2014, lists the applicant’s chronic illnesses as: Phase of life or life circumstance problem; depression; atypical depressive disorder; acute stress disorder; adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. The applicant provided Laurel Ridge Treatment Center Discharge Summary, dated 25 February 2009, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with Bipolar I disorder, most recent episode depressed, severe with psychosis, in early remission. Report of Medical History, dated 18 March 2015, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Atypical Depression (nervous breakdown) – 7 day admission at Laurel Ridge Hospital; currently stable with no medications, counseling only. The applicant provided a copy of Department of Veterans Affairs letter, dated 25 July 2016, reflecting the applicant was rated 30 percent disability for bipolar disorder (also claimed as depression, PTSD, anxiety, and depressed mood). The applicant provided Department of Veterans Affair, Myhealth webpage, dated 9 December 2016, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed unspecified anxiety disorder; PTSD, chronic; major depressive disorder in full remission; and bipolar I disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; two self-authored statements; separation documents; military service documents; medical certifications; in-service medical records; VA medical records; and VA letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends maintaining employment as an anesthesiologist with Aiken Regional Medical Center for five years and effectively coparenting with the former spouse. The applicant had three children: one child is in Vanderbilt Law School, one is in Clemson University studying Chemistry and Pre-medicine, and one is in senior high school with plans to attend Clemson University. 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 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23, provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Paragraph 1-23b, states an officer will normally receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service when the officer’s military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A separation under general (under honorable conditions) normally appropriate when an officer: Submits an unqualified resignation; Separated based on misconduct; discharged for physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or neglect; and, for final revocation of a security clearance. (4) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (5) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (6) Paragraph 4-20a (previously 4-24a), states an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case elect one of the following options: (1) Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; (2) request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and (3) Apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. 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 “BNC” as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct; and 4-24a (1), resignation in lieu of elimination. 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 changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, and 4-24a(1), AR 600-8-24 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Unacceptable Conduct,” and the separation code is “BNC.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends an untreated psychiatric condition affected behavior which led to the elimination and being diagnosed with bipolar and receiving 100 percent disability rating for mental health disorders, including bipolar I and PTSD symptoms by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The applicant provided several medical documents reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with unspecified anxiety disorder; PTSD, chronic; major depressive disorder in full remission; and bipolar I disorder. The applicant was rated 30 percent disability for bipolar disorder (also claimed as depression, PTSD, anxiety, and depressed mood). The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service phase of life or life circumstance problem; depression; atypical depressive disorder; acute stress disorder; and adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. The applicant provided medical documents reflecting the applicant was admitted at the Laurel Ridge Treatment Center while in service and diagnosed with bipolar I disorder, most recent episode depressed, severe with psychosis, in early remission. The record is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the phobias regarding mental health conditions and poor Army regulations prevented the applicant from receiving the proper characterization and full medical retirement. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the command failed to refer the applicant for a mental status evaluation before discharging the applicant as recommended by the IO. The AMHRR reflects during a commander’s inquiry, the investigating officer recommended a mental status evaluation. Army Regulation 600-8-24, provides when processing elimination of a nonprobationary officer, the officer undergoes a separation physical examination within 5 days from the date the option is chosen. When it is determined the officer’s mental condition contributed to military inefficiency or unsuitability, the medical evaluation will include a psychiatric study of the officer. On 23 February 2015, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the officer elimination initiation memorandum, wherein the applicant also acknowledged the requirement to undergo a separation physical and mental examination. The AMHRR includes a Report of Medical History, dated 18 March 2015, wherein the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Atypical Depression (nervous breakdown) – 7 day admission at Laurel Ridge Hospital; currently stable with no medications, counseling only. The records were considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends good service, including 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 maintaining employment as an anesthesiologist with Aiken Regional Medical Center for five years and effectively coparenting with the former spouse. The applicant had three children: one child is in Vanderbilt Law School, one is in Clemson University studying Chemistry and Pre-medicine, and one is in senior high school with plans to attend Clemson University. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Bipolar Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Acute Stress Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and Depression. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with Bipolar Disorder for which applicant is also service connected by the VA. Additional in-service diagnoses include Acute Stress Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and Depression and the VA has also diagnosed PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The BMA applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s above-mentioned behavioral health conditions do not mitigate the applicant’s misconduct of Adultery, threatening spouse, mental abuse, and breaking spouses’ phone to prevent 911 call as there is no nexus between the applicant’s behavioral conditions and the applicant’s misconduct. Further, while Bipolar disorder can be associated with hypersexuality, there is no evidence that in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant that the applicant was in a manic state when the applicant engaged in Adultery. Therefore, the applicant’ behavioral health conditions do not mitigate any of the applicant’s misconduct. (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 Bipolar Disorder, PTSD, Acute Stress Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and Depression outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – Adultery, threatening spouse, mental abuse, and breaking spouses’ phone to prevent 911 call. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this conetention and determined there are no mitigating conditions or experiences to support a change to applicant’s narrative reason for separation. The applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (2) The applicant contends an untreated psychiatric condition affected behavior which led to the elimination and being diagnosed with bipolar and receiving 100 percent disability rating for mental health disorders, including bipolar I and PTSD symptoms by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that, based on the Board Medical Advisor opine, the applicant’s Bipolar disorder, PTSD and other metal health disorders do not mitigate or excuse the applicant’s misconduct of adultery, threatening spouse, mental abuse, and breaking spouses’ phone to prevent 911 call. See paragraph 9. a. of this document. The applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (3) The applicant contends the phobias regarding mental health conditions and poor Army regulations prevented the applicant from receiving the proper characterization and full medical retirement. The Board liberally considered this contention, and ultimately determined that the applicant’s BH conditions of Bipolar Disorder, PTSD, Acute Stress Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and Depression do not excuse or mitigate the applicant’s adultery, threatening spouse, mental abuse, and breaking spouses’ phone to prevent 911 call. Thus, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. Determinations on medical retirements are not within the purview of the ADRB the applicant should apply to the Army Board of Corrections to Military Record (ABCMR). (4) The applicant contends the command failed to refer the applicant for a mental status evaluation before discharging the applicant as recommended by the IO. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant was seen for a MSE dated 18 March 2015 and cleared for separation. The applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (5) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s 26 years of service, including numerous awards and service in Iraq, but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s offenses of adultery, threatening spouse, mental abuse, and breaking spouses’ phone to prevent 911 call. (6) The applicant contends maintaining employment as an anesthesiologist with Aiken Regional Medical Center for five years and effectively coparenting with the former spouse. The applicant had three children: one child is in Vanderbilt Law School, one is in Clemson University studying Chemistry and Pre-medicine, and one is in senior high school with plans to attend Clemson University. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service accomplishment do not outweigh the applicant’s offenses of adultery, threatening spouse, mental abuse, and breaking spouses’ phone to prevent 911 call based on the seriousness of the applicant’s offenses. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the 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 not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Bipolar Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Acute Stress Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and Depression did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of committing adultery, threatening applicant’s spouse, mental abuse, and breaking spouses’ phone to prevent 911 call. The Board considered the applicant’s contention regarding an impropriety in the mental status evaluation and determined that applicant was properly provided a MSE. The Board considered applicant’s contentions regarding good service and post-service accomplishments but determined that a totality of the applicant’s record does not merit a discharge upgrade at this time. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. ? 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 AR20210002390 1