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 other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a change to narrative reason. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the character of service was both improper and inequitable considering the current diagnosis of PTSD and documented symptoms at the time the misconduct was committed. The applicant was not properly evaluated for outstanding mental health conditions at the time of separation. At a young age, the applicant experienced multiple combat tours in two of Afghanistan’s most violent providences. These harrowing experiences left the applicant with severe trauma which still haunts the applicant as PTSD. After nearly five years of honorable service, including two tours of foreign combat service and being awarded with a Purple Heart, the applicant is forced to live with the stigma of this discharge, which is dramatically affecting daily life. The evolved understanding of combat trauma and PTSD, in the military, legal, and medical worlds, has revealed military combat survivors of this modem era are returning from deployment with symptoms of PTSD, are unlikely to be receiving proper treatment, and are committing misconduct because of this condition at an unprecedented rate. This new understanding has led to the advancement of PTSD treatment, changes in the law, and medical definitions. The applicant proudly served this country, was twice deployed into hostile combat zones on foreign soil, witnessed destruction and carnage, sustained permanent injuries both physical and mental, and made mistakes, which the applicant regrets. The applicant voluntarily sought out treatment for mental health conditions and continues to attend appointments, which have had a positive impact on the applicant’s life. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 18 January 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 10 August 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 July 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 10 March 2012, the applicant assaulted the spouse by punching spouse multiple times with a closed fist causing bruising and substantial pain to wrist. On or about 10 March 2012, the applicant assaulted the spouse by striking with a metal belt buckle wrapped around fist causing bruising to back and a cut on forehead. On or about 10 March 2012, the applicant unlawfully held the spouse against will in the house and would not let the spouse leave the residence. On or about 10 March 2012, the applicant assaulted the spouse by holding two kitchen knives in hands and saying, “I will kill your father if he shows up,” or words to effect. On or about 10 March 2012, the applicant caused the spouse to engage in a sexual act by using physical violence and restraint applied by holding down spouse by hair, so spouse could not escape. On or about 10 March 2012, the applicant caused the spouse to engage in a sexual act by placing spouse in fear of physical injury. On or about 23 March 2012, the applicant failed to obey a lawful order issued by CPT M. On or about 25 March 2012, the applicant drove a motor vehicle without insurance and with a suspended license. On or about 2 May 2010, the applicant operated a vehicle while drunk. On or about 15 November 2008, the applicant assaulted Mr. F., by striking on the arm with a rock causing an abrasion and bleeding. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 July 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 11 July 2012, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of rights. On 17 July 2012, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 August 2012 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 September 2007 / 6 years, 26 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 4 years, 10 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (1 January 2009 – 9 January 2010; 1 April 2011 – 5 March 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-3CS, PH, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 15 November 2008, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Assault 2nd degree (on post). Military Police Report, dated 2 May 2010, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Driving While Intoxicated; Aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle 3rd degree; Refusal to take breath test; Failed to yield right of way when entering roadway; No/inadequate lights (off post). Military Police Report, dated 17 March 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Assault 2nd degree; Assault 3rd degree; Unlawful Imprisonment 2nd degree; Menacing 2nd degree; Rape 1st degree (off post). Military Police Report, dated 25 March 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle 2nd degree; Operating a motor vehicle with switched plates; Operating a motor vehicle with no insurance; Unsafe start; Willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer (on post). FG Article 15, dated 5 April 2012, for disobeying a lawful order on or about 23 March 2012, and on or about 25 March 2012, drive a motor vehicle without insurance. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $745 pay per month for two months (suspended) and, extra duty for 45 days. CID Report of Investigation final, dated 4 May 2012, reflects, an Investigation by the Watertown Police Department, Watertown (WPD), determined probable cause existed to believe the applicant committed the listed offenses against spouse during a domestic altercation. On 10 March 2012, the applicant was arrested by the WPD, arraigned and held on $10,000 bail pending additional judicial actions, for Assault 3rd degree; Assault 2nd degree; Menacing 2nd Degree; Rape 1st degree; Unlawful imprisonment 2nd degree. The applicant provided a letter from the Jefferson County Public Defender’s Office, dated 7 September 2012, reflects July 2012, Term of the Jefferson County Grand Jury returned a “no bill” in regard to the above matter. What this basically means is the charges against the applicant have been dismissed. This file is considered closed. 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 18 April 2012, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with positive results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. The applicant was diagnosed with: Partner relations problems. Report of Medical History, dated 20 April 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Depression and anxiety. The applicant provided a copy of a VA Document dated 17 December 2015, reflects, the applicant was diagnosed with Major depressive disorder, moderate; PTSD; Tobacco use disorder, mild; Alcohol use disorder, moderate, in early remission; Substance use disorder, moderate, in early remission. The applicant provided a copy of a letter from Henderson Behavioral Health dated 8 December 2016, reflects the applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD since February 2016. Medical Examination Note dated 30 October 2018, reflects, the applicant was diagnosis with PTSD; Alcohol use disorder in remission; Cannabis use disorder in remission. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Attorney brief and Exhibits A through H; legal Aid Service of Broward County and Medical Examination Notes. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Obtained a contract job overseas and successfully completed the Veterans Treatment Court program. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Paragraph 3-7c states Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (6) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (7) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s 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 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a under other than 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 character of service was both improper and inequitable considering the current diagnosis of PTSD and documented symptoms at the time misconduct was committed. The applicant contends not being properly evaluated for outstanding mental health conditions at the time of separation. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record contains documentation which supports in-service PTSD. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation 18 April 2012, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with positive results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. The applicant was diagnosed with: Partner relations problems. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. A Report of Medical History, dated 20 April 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Depression and anxiety. The applicant provided a copy of a VA Document dated 17 December 2015, reflects, the applicant was diagnosed with Major depressive disorder, moderate; PTSD; Tobacco use disorder, mild; Alcohol use disorder, moderate, in early remission; Substance use disorder, moderate, in early remission. Also, a Letter from Henderson Behavioral Health dated 8 December 2016, reflects the applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD since February 2016. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. 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 third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s conduct during and after leaving the Army. The applicant contends obtaining employment and seeking treatment. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment Disorder, PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held an in-service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder and is service-connected for PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that documentation of the March 2012 event does not align with an individual having a flashback or other trauma response. Rather, documentation outlines a series of conscious and thought-out decisions over a significant period of time, e.g., identifying and obtaining effective weapons, identifying ways to prevent spouse from escaping or defending, identifying means to prevent others from coming to the spouse’s aid, etc. Additionally, documentation indicates awareness the actions were wrong as the applicant attempted to evade intervention or consequences, e.g., having the spouse deny difficulties when called and threatening family if they interfered. Moreover, the applicant’s statement that the spouse did not know what was going through the applicant’s mind and only got “a little bit of what I could do” reflects conscious awareness of thoughts and actions taken to the extent of choosing which behaviors to engage in and which to show restraint. The applicant was present in the moment. Further, the misconduct aligns with characterological difficulties documented prior to deployment and which persist post-service. Additionally, the 2008 assault occurred prior to deployment negating a PTSD assertion and there is no nexus between driving on a suspended license and trauma. (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 Disorder or PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) perpetrator, Unlawful Imprisonment 2nd degree; Menacing 2nd degree; Rape 1st degree, driving without license or insurance, switching license plates on vehicle – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that there is insufficient evidence to suggest an upgrade is warranted. The serious nature of the applicant’s offenses convinced the Board that the current narrative reason is proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends character of service was both improper and inequitable considering the current diagnosis of PTSD and documented symptoms at the time the misconduct was committed, and the applicant was not properly evaluated for outstanding mental health conditions at the time of separation. 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 the applicant’s diagnoses were only partially mitigating, and the severity of the non-mitigated offenses far outweighed the applicant’s BH conditions as detailed in paragraph 9a(3), above. (3) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not excuse the misconduct. There is insufficient evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined that no relief is warranted as outlined in paragraph 9a(3), above, and the offenses demonstrated much more than a youthful indiscretion. (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 perpetrating IPV, Unlawfully Imprisonment of the spouse; Menacing 2nd degree; Rape 1st degree, driving without license or insurance, and switching license plates on vehicle, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (5) The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. The Board considered these statements in their deliberations but determined that the severity and violent nature of the misconduct is not outweighed by these supporting documents. (6) The applicant contends obtaining employment and seeking treatment. 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 actions do not outweigh the misconduct; thus, no relief is warranted. Furthermore, the post- service records also mention the applicant continues to have trouble with the law with weapons charges and mischief. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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 Adjustment Disorder or PTSD did not outweigh the offenses of perpetrating IPV, Unlawfully Imprisonment of the spouse; Menacing 2nd degree; Rape 1st degree, driving without license or insurance, and switching license plates on vehicle for the reasons detailed in paragraph 9a(3), above. 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, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210002454 1