1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, proudly serving in the Infantry to fight against terrorism. The applicant was assigned to Germany and deployed to Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The applicant was involved in three explosions by the enemy, earning two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star with V Device. The applicant witnessed first-hand countless devastating enemy attacks. By the end of deployment, the platoon had suffered nearly 60 percent casualties. The applicant reenlisted, hoping to remain with the unit, but when the applicant returned to Germany, the applicant received orders to a new unit in Germany. The applicant deployed to Afghanistan, was blown up by an improvised explosive device (IED), and lost more friends and brothers in arms. The applicant returned to Germany and was promoted ahead of peers, making E-6 within six years of enlistment. The applicant was the first E-5 to obtain the Sergeant Morales Medal in the unit. The applicant realized the applicant was struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) but did not seek assistance because of the stigma attached to being a weak Soldier. In 2011, the applicant received orders to become an Army Recruiter and struggled with achieving office cohesion because the Soldiers did not share the same combat experience. The Soldiers often referred to the applicant as the “War Hero.” The applicant was struggling with PTSD, anger issues, and, unknown at the time, traumatic brain injury (TBI). The applicant’s marriage was falling apart. The applicant would drink alcohol and socially isolate, which was mentioned in the sworn statements from other noncommissioned officers, to include the station commander. The misconduct occurred on the anniversary weekend of the loss of the applicant’s commander, with whom the applicant was close with during the deployment to Afghanistan. Sergeant First Class D. explains under a suicide and self-harm threat assessment, United States Army Recruiting Command – USAREC Risk Assessment and Counseling (URAC), the applicant’s results shifted from green to amber on the day before the misconduct. The misconduct was inexcusable, but the applicant would not have made the same decision if the applicant received treatment for the PTSD and TBI. The command sought to make an example out of the applicant by delivering harsh punishment. The applicant received a rating of 70 percent combat-related disability for PTSD, 10 percent for TBI, and 50 percent for migraines from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The applicant graduated from college in three years with a double major and entered the field of Legislative work in the California State Assembly. The applicant helps California draft and implement new laws and also fights as an advocate for veteran and military communities. The applicant is a continual source of mentorship for veterans. The applicant knows the misconduct was not in keeping with the Army standards. The applicant further details the contentions in the application and an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 9 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 April 2014 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: The applicant provided a AR 15-6 Investigation Summary of Proceedings, which reflects on 13 February 2014, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 April 2011 / NIF / The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief reflects the expiration term of service as 18 October 2014. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / HS Graduate / 125 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 11B30, Infantryman / 9 years, 7 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 15 September 2004 – 2 June 2006 / HD RA, 3 June 2006 – 16 November 2009 / HD RA, 17 November 2009 – 11 April 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (26 January 2009 – 17 September 2009); Iraq (13 January 2006 – 12 February 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ICM-2CS, BSM-VD, PH-2, ARCOM-5, AAM-5, NUC, ASUA, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-3, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 15 October – 2 June 2011 / Among the Best 3 June 2011 – 2 June 2012 / Among the Best 3 June 2012 – 29 May 2013 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 21 March 2013, reflects the applicant planned and participated in a party for subjects of the recruiting effort on the night of 6 July 2012, at another recruiter’s home. The applicant supplied alcohol to these individuals, many of whom were underage. The applicant drove several of these individuals to this party in the applicant’s own vehicle. The applicant admitted to exchanging personal and sexually suggestive text messages with a 16-year-old person. The actions were in violation of United States Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) Regulation 600-25 and Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). FG Article 15, dated 29 May 2013, for violating a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully: Having an unauthorized relationship with Future Soldier (FS) C. A., prospect D. G., FS J. G., FS B. G., FS Q. E., FS J. L., prospect J. L., prospect E. P., and FS Y. Y., to wit: engaging in unofficial, personal contact such as socializing and consuming alcoholic beverages (6 July 2012); Allowing individuals under the state drinking age to consume alcoholic beverages (6 July 2012); and Having an unauthorized relationship with T. K., a prospect, to wit: exchanging text messages of a personal and/or sexual nature. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5. Memorandum, subject: Investigation Findings and Recommendation regarding Sergeant J. K., and [Applicant], dated 18 July 2012, reflects the immediate commander found the applicant committed various acts in violation of USAREC Regulation 600-25, which are punishable under Article 92, UCMJ: Romantic Sexual Conduct; Sharing of lodging or personal vehicle; Drinking of alcoholic beverages; Unofficial personal contact such as entertaining, dining, recreation, dating, or other intimacy; Entry of any subject of a recruiting effort into the dwelling place of any recruiter; Creates an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, or morale; The use of alcoholic beverages as a recruiting incentive; and Allowing any individual under the state drinking age to consume alcoholic beverages. The commander recommended a Field Grade Article 15, for the offenses. The applicant provided formal AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations, dated 13 February 2014, which reflects the administrative separation board found the applicant: Did commit serious misconduct in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. In that the applicant, did on 6 July 2012, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: USAREC Reg 600-25, paragraph 2-1a (1), dated 4 February 2009, by wrongfully having an unauthorized relationship with FS C. A., prospect D. G., FS J. G., FS B. G., FS Q. E., FS J. L., prospect J. L., prospect E. P., and FS Y. Y., to wit: engaging in unofficial, personal contact such as socializing and consuming alcoholic beverages. Did commit serious misconduct in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. The applicant, did on 6 July 2012; violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: USAREC Reg 600-25, paragraph 2-5a(8),dated 4 February 2009, by wrongfully allowing individuals under the state drinking age to consume alcoholic beverages. Did commit serious misconduct in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. The applicant did, between 1 May 2012 and 9 July 2012, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: USAREC Reg 600-25, paragraph 2-1a(1), dated 4 February 2009, by wrongfully having an unauthorized relationship with T. K., a prospect, to wit: exchanging text messages of a personal and/or sexual nature. This is in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. The applicant provided memorandum, subject: Respondent Request for Reconsideration of Board Findings and Recommendations, Administrative Separation Board Proceedings [Applicant], dated 3 March 2014, which reflects the applicant’s defense counsel, presented the argument the administrative separation board president was biased during the board proceedings to the separation authority. The applicant’s DD Form 214, reflects the applicant had completed the first full term of service. The applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, with a narrative reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense). The DD Form was not authenticated with the applicant’s electronic signature. The applicant was reduced from E-5 to E-1 effective 1 April 2014. The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 22 April 2014, reflects the applicant was flagged for Involuntary Separation or Discharge (Field Initiated) (BA), effective 21 August 2013; was ineligible for reenlistment due to Pending Separation (9V). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided Adult Preventive and Chronic Care Flowchart, undated, which reflects the applicant as having chronic illnesses, with onset date from 7 December 2005 to 28 December 2009: anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified; post-traumatic headache; post-traumatic insomnia; cognitive disorder; post- concussion syndrome; vasovagal syncope; and tinnitus of both ears. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; two self-authored statements; administrative separation board documents; AR 635-200 excerpt; commander’s inquiry / investigation documents; military service documents; in-service medical records; nine third party character references; and letters of recommendation. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends graduating from college with a double major; working in the California State Assembly, assisting California draft and implement new laws; and being an advocate for the veteran and military community and a continual source of mentorship. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12c 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. 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 “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). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-3 applies 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 not authenticated with the applicant’s electronic signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends PTSD and TBI affected behavior which led to the discharge and being. rated 70 percent combat-related disability for PTSD, 10 percent for TBI, and 50 percent for migraines from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The applicant provided medical documents which reflect the applicant had chronic illnesses: anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified; post-traumatic headache; post-traumatic insomnia; cognitive disorder; post- concussion syndrome; vasovagal syncope; and tinnitus of both ears. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the administrative separation board president was biased and unduly influenced the junior members. The applicant provided a memorandum, which reflects the applicant’s defense counsel, presented the argument of a biased administrative separation board president to the separation authority. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends graduating from college with a double major; working in the California State Assembly, assisting California draft and implement new laws; and being an advocate for the veteran and military community and a continual source of mentorship. 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good military service and good conduct after leaving the Army. 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, TBI, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and Cognitive Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s PTSD, TBI, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and Cognitive 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 no association between PTSD, TBI or any of applicant's BH conditions and any of the misconduct that led to applicant’s separation given that none of the conditions impact one’s ability to distinguish between right and 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 PTSD, TBI, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and Cognitive Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – supplying alcohol to underage recruits while serving as a recruiter, and exchanging personal/sexual text messages with an underage recruit – for the aforementioned reason. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD and TBI affected behavior which led to the discharge and being. rated 70 percent combat-related disability for PTSD, 10 percent for TBI, and 50 percent for migraines from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 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 there is no association between the applicant’s PTSD, TBI, or any of the applicant’s BH diagnoses and the nature of the applicant’s misconduct. (2) The applicant contends the administrative separation board president was biased and unduly influenced the junior members. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of unfair command influence, however the Board determined that there is insufficient evidence of in official records, and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board determined that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. (3) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and noted Army Regulation 635-200, which stipulates, in pertinent part, that the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The Board determined that the applicant’s contention of the basis for separation being an isolated incident does not mitigate or outweigh the discharge due to the nature of the offenses. (4) The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By supplying alcohol to underage recruits while serving as a recruiter, and exchanging personal/sexual text messages with an underage recruit, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (5) The applicant contends graduating from college with a double major; working in the California State Assembly, assisting California draft and implement new laws; and being an advocate for the veteran and military community and a continual source of mentorship. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service conduct does not mitigate or outweigh the propriety and equity of the applicant’s discharge. (6) The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. The Board considered the third party statements and determined they do not mitigate or outweigh the property and equity of the applicant’s discharge. 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 PTSD, TBI, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and Cognitive Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the basis for applicant’s separation – supplying alcohol to underage recruits while serving as a recruiter, and exchanging personal/sexual text messages with an underage recruit. 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, and the applicant’s BH conditions are service limiting. ? 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 AR20210002399 1