1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: 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 through legal counsel an upgrade to honorable and a change to the narrative reason consistent with the upgrade. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was plainly improper according to 32 C.F.R. § 70.9(b). As illustrated, both an error of fact and procedure existed at the time of the applicant's discharge, and these errors were highly prejudicial to the applicant's rights. Had these errors not existed, there is substantial doubt the applicant would have still received a general discharge. Furthermore, 10 U.S.C. § 1553 bolsters this assertion as it provides liberal consideration must be afforded to applicants whose post-traumatic stress disorder potentially contributed to their lesser characterization discharge. Therefore, according to these federal regulations, the Board must deem the applicant's general discharge improper, and award an honorable discharge, and change the narrative reason for separation consistent with the upgrade. In addition, the applicant requests the Board to consider whether, at the time, entitled to a Physical Evaluation Board, and separation or retirement benefits in accordance with Army Regulation 635-40. If so, the applicant requests the Board refer case to the Army's Physical Disability Agency for processing and award of any retroactive pay and benefits. The applicant made the same sacrificial choice every honorably discharged service member has made, the choice to serve this country; and served just as honorably as those service members. Unfortunately, the deck was truly stacked against the applicant. The applicant was seriously injured and not receiving adequate care and the Army unfairly labeled the applicant a troublemaker without sufficient evidence. Compounding the trauma, the applicant faced a hostile work environment where superior officers degraded the applicant with deeply offensive racial slurs. The applicant was then punished for wanting to die and was in a war zone. Any of those circumstances, alone, could reasonably trigger PTSD and suicidal tendencies. Counsel further details the contentions in an allied legal brief. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 26 August 2022, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable because the applicant's service- connected PTSD mitigated the misconduct that led to the applicant being found guilty of and subsequently separated for malingering. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions). The Board determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 30 March 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 March 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 1 March 2012, the applicant was found guilty of malingering. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 March 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 March 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 September 2010 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 25U1P, Signal Support System Specialist / 1 year, 6 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None, SWA / Iraq, (16 July 2011 - 4 December 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: AR 15-6 Investigation dated on 24 November 2011, reflects: Using the preponderance of the evidence standard, the investigating officer (IO) finds the applicant did not intend to engage in a suicide attempt, ideation, or gesture, but in fact feigned suicidal intentions to achieve an ulterior motive. Facts and supporting evidence overwhelmingly suggest the applicant is attempting to subvert military contract and achieve premature separation from the Army. The applicant is experiencing elevated levels of stress from deployment in support of Operation New Dawn, as well as stressors related to family life. However, these stresses are not beyond those of an average Soldier, and do not merit the level of anxiety and willingness to inflict self-harm which the applicant claims to mental health counselors. According to all the applicant's mental health evaluations, except for one. The applicant is experiencing a clinical adjustment disorder. Examinations and clinical tests conclude the applicant is feigning symptoms and grossly exaggerating all suicidal ideations. It is therefore the recommendation of the IO, the applicant chain of command consider UCMJ action for malingering, as well as separation from the Army for patterns of misconduct. If these options are not viable then the applicant should be separated from the Army under a medical chapter for inability to adjust. FG Article 15, dated 1 March 2012, for intentionally injure the applicant by taking two or three Motrin pills and inserting a basketball inflating needle into arm to injure oneself. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $500 pay per month for two months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Memorandum for Record, Behavioral Health Status Update, dated 26 October 2011, reflects the applicant met the DSM-IV-TR criteria for malingering and an Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, Chronic. Memorandum written by N., a Licensed Professional Counselor dated 28 October 2011, reflects, the applicant meets the criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder Without Agoraphobia, and Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. The applicant also attempted suicide and continues to harbor thoughts of suicide daily. It is apparent the applicant is experiencing multiple and significant mental health issues which render the applicant incapable or continuing military service. Memorandum for Command Directed Mental Health Evaluation, dated 1 November 2011, reflects a diagnosis of: Axis I: 309.0 Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood V65.2 Malingering; Axis II: Deferred; Axis III: Reported history of leg injury; Axis IV: Occupational Problems, illness of mother; Axis V: 60(current). Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 March 2012, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Adjustment Disorder and Malingering Disorder. The applicant provided a Veterans Affairs Rating decision, dated 29 December 2014, which reflects an evaluation of 70 percent for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Attorney brief with exhibits 1 through 38. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant completed an accelerated Emergency Medical Training in Long Beach at CIEMT within three weeks. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 600-85 defines the Limited Use Policy and states unless waived under the circumstances listed in paragraph 10-13d, Limited Use Policy prohibits the use by the government of protected evidence against a Soldier in actions under the UCMJ or on the issue of characterization of service in administrative proceedings. Additionally, the policy limits the characterization of discharge to "Honorable" if protected evidence is used. Protected evidence under this policy includes e. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. f. Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes, provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). g. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends having PTSD. The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service PTSD. A Memorandum written by N., a Licensed Professional Counselor dated 28 October 2011, reflects the applicant met the criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder Without Agoraphobia, and Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. This memorandum stated that the applicant attempted suicide, continued to harbor thoughts of suicide daily, and was experiencing multiple and significant mental health issues which rendered the applicant incapable or continuing military service. The applicant provided a Veterans Affairs Rating decision, dated 29 December 2014, which reflects, an evaluation of 70 percent for PTSD. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 6 March 2012, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Adjustment Disorder and Malingering Disorder. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The counsel contends the Army violated chapter 5-17, by not allowing ample opportunity to recover from adjustment disorder, which is the same violation of 635-200 occurred in Cowles v. McHugh, wherein the court remanded the case back to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). The AMHRR shows on 8 March 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notice under the provisions of chapter 14-12c (Commission of a Serious Offense). The applicant was not separated under the provisions of chapter 5-17 (Other Designated Physical or Mental conditions). The applicant received an FG Article 15, dated 1 March 2012, for intentionally injuring oneself by taking two or three Motrin pills and inserting a basketball inflating needle into arm to injure oneself. The separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of chapter 14-12c, with a general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends harassment and discrimination by members of the chain of command. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant requests the Board to consider whether, at the time, the applicant was entitled to a Physical Evaluation Board, and separation or retirement benefits in accordance with Army Regulation 635-40. If so, the applicant requests the Board refer case to the Army Physical Disability Agency for processing and award of any retroactive pay and benefits. The applicant's request does not fall within this board's purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant contends completing an accelerated Emergency Medical Training in Long Beach at CIEMT within three weeks 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 the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder Without Agoraphobia, and Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant's PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder Without Agoraphobia, and Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that while the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, there were reports of malingering behavior in order to avoid military duties. However, a further review of the applicant's medical records indicate that the diagnosis of malingering was made based on the fact that the applicant over-endorsed the applicant's responses during BH assessments. The diagnosis was primarily made based on the outcome of psychological tests which showed a profile consistent with over-exaggeration of symptoms. Psychological tests are to be used as guides in making diagnoses, they do not definitively diagnose clinically relevant BH conditions. Since the leaving the military, the applicant has been diagnoses with PTSD for which the applicant is service connected, which indicate the applicant continues to suffer from active, life-interfering symptoms of PTSD. It is the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor that due to the continuing nature of the applicant's PTSD condition, the applicant was not correctly diagnosed with malingering, which was the basis for separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the incorrect malingering diagnosis, which was the basis for basis for separation. b. Prior Decisions Cited: Cowles v. McHugh, wherein the court remanded the case back to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). The Board considered the prior cited decision, and determined that relief to the characterization and narrative reason for discharge was warranted in the present case. c. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention valid, and due to the applicant's PTSD being the correct diagnosis voted to change the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. (2) The applicant contends that the applicant's discharge was improper because at the time of discharge the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD. 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 at the time the applicant was found guilty of malingering, the applicant did in fact have PTSD. Accordingly the Board determined the discharge was inequitable and voted to upgrade the characterization of service to Honorable. (3) The applicant contends that the applicant's discharge is improper because the Army deviated from the diagnostic procedure required to allow "ample opportunity" for a Soldier to recover from adjustment disorder before initiating separation proceedings as required by AR 635-200, paragraph 5-17 (currently 5-14) and Cowles v. McHugh. The cited case was remanded to the ABCMR from the U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut based on the applicant's contention that the applicant should not have been discharged pursuant to AR 635- 200, paragraph 5-17 before the applicant had ample time (up to 6 months) from adjustment disorder. The ABCMR granted full relief. The Board considered the prior cited decision, and determined that relief to the characterization and narrative reason for discharge was warranted in the present case. (4) The applicant contends harassment and discrimination by members of the chain of command. The Board considered this contention but ultimately did not address it due to an upgrade being based on the applicant's PTSD being the correct diagnosis at the time of discharge rather than malingering, which was the basis for separation. (5) The applicant contends that the Army improperly discharged the applicant under Chapter 14-12c as a means to get injured Soldier off its hands more quickly. The Board considered this contention but ultimately did not address it due to an upgrade being based on the applicant's PTSD being the correct diagnosis at the time of discharge rather than malingering, which was the basis for separation. (6) The applicant contends that the applicant's suicide attempt does not meet the definition of malingering. The Board considered this contention but ultimately did not address it due to an upgrade being based on the applicant's PTSD being the correct diagnosis at the time of discharge rather than malingering, which was the basis for separation. (7) The applicant contends that the applicant's characterization is not consistent with the applicant's action before or after the applicant's suicide attempt. The Board considered this contention but ultimately did not address it due to an upgrade being based on the applicant's PTSD being the correct diagnosis at the time of discharge rather than malingering, which was the basis for separation. (8) The applicant requests the Board to consider whether, at the time, the applicant was entitled to a Physical Evaluation Board, and separation or retirement benefits in accordance with Army Regulation 635-40. If so, the applicant requests the Board refer case to the Army's Physical Disability Agency for processing and award of any retroactive pay and benefits. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's request does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. (9) The applicant contends completing an accelerated Emergency Medical Training in Long Beach at CIEMT within three weeks. The Board considered this contention and post- service accomplishments of the applicant, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being based on the applicant's PTSD being the correct diagnosis at the time of discharge rather than malingering, which was the basis for separation. d. The Board determined that the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant, while suffering from service-connected PTSD, was incorrectly found guilty of and subsequently separated for malingering. e. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD outweighed the incorrect malingering diagnosis, which was the basis for basis for separation. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate.. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (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 condition is service limiting. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210002592 1