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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was falsely accused of sexual assault. The applicant should have been allowed to separate on the applicant’s expiration term of service (ETS) of 31 March 2017, with an honorable discharge. The applicant was the victim of a false accusation of sexual assault and should not be stigmatized. The Army held the applicant past the applicant’s ETS date to pursue trial by court martial. The charge was dismissed because the person recanted the false allegation and the applicant was not separated from the military within the five days after the decision was made to dismiss the charge in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, paragraph 1-31c. On 9 March 2017, the trial counsel prepared a Brady disclosure which stated the witness complaining in this case, stated “I am not a victim of sexual assault.” On 13 March 2017, trial counsel sent an email to the military judge, Colonel J. C., stating the alleged victim, recanted to government counsel and the person was never sexually assaulted and lied about the incident. On 15 March 2017, the convening authority, Lieutenant General (LTG) S. M., withdrew the charge, but the applicant was retained beyond the extended ETS date to process administrative separation proceedings. This action is generally prohibited. Retention beyond a Soldier’s ETS to process administrative separation proceedings is not authorized in accordance with AR 635- 200, paragraph 1-26. As a result, the Army sought to obtain an exception to policy pursuant to AR 635-200, paragraph 1-26a, to separate the applicant from the service with an other than honorable discharge. The applicant was not present for the board because the applicant was honorably discharged on 31 March 2017. The exception to policy, dated 31 March 2017, was not signed by the appropriate authority and no delegation of authority is indicated on the memorandum. The memorandum is defective and does not extend the applicant on active duty to process administrative separation proceedings. The applicant’s defense counsel had not seen a legal opinion from the Office of the Judge Advocate General (OTJAG) stating the 31 March 2017 memorandum was valid or there was a valid delegation of authority to COL S. to extend the applicant. The applicant should have been honorably discharged on 31 March 2017, the applicant digitally signed the DD Form 214 and left active duty with the DD Form 214. The applicant was called back to Fort Hood, TX, regarding the matter involving the administrative delegation. The Army conducted an administrative separation board in the applicant’s absence and without legal representation. The legal issues should have been resolved before convening an administrative separation board. The applicant’s status as a Soldier was not clarified by an OTJAG legal opinion. Without a status as a Soldier, the applicant was not entitled to TDS services. This prevented the detailing authority at TDS from detailing a TDS attorney to represent the applicant at the administrative separation board. The applicant requests consideration of these legal issues and direct the discharge be rightfully upgraded to an honorable discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 14 December 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 10 August 2017 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: On 29 March 2017, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of rights. On 18 April 2017, the administrative separation board convened in absentia. The TDS counsel did not participate in the proceedings. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 July 2017 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 January 2013 / 3 years, 22 weeks / The Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of any enlistment contract retaining the applicant on active duty after the initial / most recent enlistment period. The AMHRR reflects the applicant was extended for the convenience of the government. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 14T10, Patriot Operator Maintainer / 4 years, 6 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Bahrain (29 November 2015 – 15 June 2016); Kuwait (15 August 2014 – 23 August 2015) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM-2, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 22 February 2014, reflects the applicant was cited for: turned when unsafe (on post) and a traffic accident. Investigation revealed on 21 February 2014, the applicant’s vehicle failed to turn safely and the applicant’s vehicle struck a utility pole, shearing the pole off and breaking communication cable loose. The communication line fell and struck two vehicles, causing damage. The electrical pole was split in half and had to be replaced. The applicant provided district Court 426th Judicial District Bell County, TX, Affidavit, dated 31 August 2016, which reflects J. N. provided a sworn statement indicating J. N. called the Killeen Police Department on 7 August 2016 and informed them J. N. did not desire to press charges against the applicant and informed the District Attorney, J. N. desired to drop the charges against the applicant. Law Enforcement Report – 1st Corrected Final, dated 1 September 2016, reflects it was reported by the Justice of Peace Precinct 4, Bell County Annex [redacted] received an Emergency Protective Order against the applicant for Family Violence (8 August 2016). Law Enforcement Report – 2nd Corrected Final, dated 5 October 2016, reflects the applicant signed and received a Military Protective Order protecting [redacted] (17 August 2016). The order was effective until 3 October 2016, unless rescinded, modified or extended. Law Enforcement Report – SIR – Final Supplemental, dated 9 January 2017, reflects an investigation established the applicant committed the offense of rape, and not sexual assault (7 August 2016). Investigation revealed [redacted] reported [redacted] woke up to the applicant ripping [redacted] clothes off and forced [redacted] to engage in sexual acts with the applicant. [Redacted] immediately called 911 and reported the incident. The applicant was apprehended on the scene and declined to make a statement. The applicant provided Government R.C.M. 701(a)(6), Brady v. Maryland ad Giglio, N. Recantation, dated 9 March 2017, reflects CPT J. K. informed government counsel, via telephone, CPT J. K.’s client, J. N., stated “I am not a victim of sexual assault,” recanting the allegations from 7 August 2016. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 1 April 2017, which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature, indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 4, by reason of Completion of Required Active Service, with a characterization of service of honorable. Memorandum, dated 3 April 2017, reflects in accordance with AR 635-5, the DD Form 214, dated 1 April 2017, was voided because the applicant was extended for 180 days for administrative reasons. The applicant provided electronic mail communications, dated between 6 and 17 April 2017, reflecting a conversation between the Senior Defense Counsel (SDC) and the trial counsel explaining why the SDC could not detail a defense counsel to represent the applicant, basing the decision on having no authority to represent civilians, citing Title 10 U.S.C. section 1168. The SDC indicated the applicant completed the three steps on the morning of 31 March 2017 and the Army no longer had jurisdiction over the applicant. Law Enforcement Report – 1st Corrected Final, dated 16 June 2017, reflects the applicant was reported absent without leave as of 3 April 2017 and present for duty as of 5 May 2017, when the applicant surrendered to the unit. Memorandum, subject: Advice on Disposition of Administrative Separation Board Proceedings under AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c [Applicant], undated, reflects: On 7 August 2016, the applicant was alleged to have raped J. N. On 31 August 2016, the battery Commander initiated separation under AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, based on the Bell County District Attorney’s Office’s representation they would prosecute the case. On 14 September 2016, the Acting Commander, III Corps and Fort Hood, sent a written request to the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army, G-1, to administratively retain the applicant beyond the ETS date of 3 October 2016 to pursue prosecution under the UCMJ. On 28 September 2016, the Bell County District Attorney’s (DA’s) office declined criminal prosecution and released jurisdiction to the Army because of victim’s lack of cooperation. The General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) retained the applicant beyond the ETS, extending it to 1 April 2017 (180 days). On 3 October 2016, the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army, G-1 administratively retained the applicant until 1 April 2017, pursuant to AR 635-200, paragraph 1-26. On 5 October 2016, a rape charge was preferred against the applicant. On 4 November 2016, the charge was referred to trial by court-martial, docketed for trial on 28 March 2017. 15 March 2017, the GCMCA dismissed the rape charge based on victim’s desire not to participate in the court-martial. The GCMCA referred the case to an administrative separation board and signed a second request to the Army G-1 to extend the applicant’s ETS date of 1 April 2017. On 29 March 2017, the applicant and Trial Defense Services were notified the board proceedings were to be held on 13 April 2017 and TDS was requested to provide a defense counsel for representation. On 31 March 2017, COL D. S. extended the applicant’s ETS for another 180 days, until 1 October 2017. The applicant already received the DD Form 214, but under the law the discharge is not effective until the Soldier meets three prerequisites: receive the discharge certificate (DD Form 214), a final accounting of pay, and completed out-processing from the installation. The applicant was not able to complete the final accounting of pay on 31 March 2017. On 3 April 2017, the applicant failed to report and marked as AWOL. From 2 to 18 April 2017, the applicant’s chain of command continued to attempt to contact the applicant. The Senior Defense Counsel (SDC) refused to detail a defense counsel, asserting the applicant was discharged and the SDC had no legal authority to detail a uniformed defense counsel to a civilian. In early April 2017, the Fort Hood Inspector General (IG); Chief of Military Justice; Administrative Law Division; and the OTJAG Administrative Law Department reviewed the issue regarding the propriety of retaining the applicant beyond the ETS, simultaneously under AR 635-200, paragraphs 1-22 and 1-26. The Chief of Justice advised the IG’s office to contact DCS G-1, the proponent of AR 635-200, because the extensions were approved by Army G-1. On 18 April 2017, the administrative separation board convened in absentia. The applicant was not represented by defense counsel at the proceedings. On 5 May 2017, the applicant returns from AWOL. In mid-May 2017, the applicant was accepted into in-patient care at Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center for behavioral health and suicidal ideations. On 23 May 2017, the applicant was served with the post-board transcript and findings, but the applicant refused to acknowledge receipt. On 4 July 2017, the applicant’s defense counsel submitted post-board matters and they were included in the separation packet for the GCMCA’s consideration. In late June and early July 2017, the Chief of Justice confirmed with the IG’s office it had spoken with Army G-1’s office and no longer had questions or concerns regarding the validity of the applicant’s ETS extension. The Acting Staff Judge Advocate (ASJA) provided an analysis regarding the validity of the ETS extension to show the GCMCA had jurisdiction over the applicant. The ASJA recommended approving the administrative separation board’s findings and recommendations. Memorandum, subject: [Applicant] – Matters Concerning Separation from the Army, dated 4 July 2017, reflects the defense counsel argued the victim, J. N. made false allegations against the applicant, which J. N. recanted. The command failed to separate the applicant five days after dismissing the charges. The memorandum, dated 31 March 2017, extending the applicant was defective. There was no legal opinion from OTJAG, determining the applicant’s status and the TDS office had no authority to represent civilians. The defense counsel requested the GCMCA disapprove the board’s recommendations and the applicant be allowed to separate the Army with an honorable discharge. Orders 209-0110, dated 29 July 2017, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 10 August 2017 from the Regular Army. The DD Form 214, dated 10 August 2017, 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 under other than honorable conditions and the applicant was unable to sign. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 35 days: CCA, 7 August 2016 – 9 August 2016 / Released from Confinement AWOL, 3 April 2017– 4 May 2017 / Surrendered j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 214; DD Form 293; Victim’s Affidavit; Government R.C.M. 701(a)(6), Brady v. Maryland and Giglio, N. Recantation; electronic mail messages; Memorandum – Withdrawal and Dismissal without Prejudice of the Court-Martial Charge; TDS Memorandum for Separation Authority. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 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 waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-3 applies to a person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable. 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 false allegations led to the discharge. The AMHRR reflects the applicant was accused of rape and the charge was referred to a court-martial. The victim later recanted the allegation. The GCMCA dismissed the court-martial charge and referred the case to an administrative separation board. The applicant and trial defense services were notified and provided the opportunity to attend the administrative separation board but refused to attend. The administrative separation board convened in the applicant’s absence and without legal representation on behalf of the applicant. The applicant contends the command failed to separate the applicant 5 days after the charge was dismissed in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-31c. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-31c provides a Soldier who is retained per paragraph 1-22 with a view to trial by court-martial, and court-martial charges are not brought or are disposed of without trial, will be separated within 5 days after the decision is made. The AMHRR reflects by memorandum from the SJA, the applicant was referred to an administrative separation board on the same date the charge was dismissed. The applicant contends the memorandum signed on 31 March 2017 extending the applicant’s ETS was defective and there was no legal opinion from OTJAG regarding the validity of the extension. The AMHRR reflects the matter of the validity of the applicant’s ETS extension was reviewed by various agencies, to include the Fort Hood Inspector General’s Office and OTJAG, Administrative Law Department, and the AMHRR does not contain any evidence to reflect the ETS extension was invalid. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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 and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held an Adjustment Disorder in-service supported by applicant’s initial service connection for Adjustment Disorder and an MDD diagnosis. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that Adjustment Disorder and MDD do not render an individual unable to appreciate, understand, and be aware of the consequences of sexual assault. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder and MDD outweighed the accepted basis for applicant’s separation – rape and AWOL – for the aforementioned reason b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends false allegations led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that that the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant's official records include the result of the applicant's administrative separation board that reflect that the administrative board found by the preponderance of the evidence that the applicant committed [include misconduct here] resulting in the SA directing the applicant's separation. (2) The applicant contends the command failed to separate the applicant 5 days after the charge was dismissed in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-31c.The applicant contends the command failed to separate the applicant 5 days after the charge was dismissed in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-31c. The Board considered this contention and determined that the G-1, within the scope of its authority in accordance with AR 635-200, paragraph 1-26, had already retained the applicant for administrative processing through 1 April 17, before the GCMCA sought to pursue trial by court- martial. Therefore, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (3) The applicant contends the memorandum signed on 31 March 2017 extending the applicant’s ETS was defective and there was no legal opinion from OTJAG regarding the validity of the extension. The Board considered this contention and determined based on additional records reviewed from OSJA, the G-1 provided an oral delegation of authority (a "voco") to the XO to sign the 31 Mar 17 memorandum on the G-1’s behalf. While it appears that there was some attempt to get a revised memorandum signed by the actual G-1, this was not required for the memo to be valid (a VOCO memorialized via email by OSJA is acceptable). Thus, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. 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 Adjustment Disorder and MDD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of rape and AWOL. The Board also considered the applicant’s contentions of impropriety and determined there was insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by command. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s conduct fell below that level of satisfactory service warranting a General discharge or meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (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 AR20210002618 1