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 Board review and consider the fact the applicant had already completed and had been found to be medically retired as a E-8. Everything was held for a couple of weeks and then a week before the applicant was discharged from the military, the applicant was reduced to E-1 and given an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant has been found to be 100 percent disabled for PTSD by the VA, which is one of the two issues listed on the PEB. The applicant requests to be considered for a full medical retirement as the applicant has sustained issues the VA has said are directly related to the applicant’s Army service. The applicant received treatment for these issues while on active duty and has been diagnosed for and is receiving treatment for them at the VAMC in Orlando, for ongoing care and treatment. The applicant is requesting full military medical retirement and full rank/grade with all honors and benefits. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 16 February 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: Sufficient Service for Retirement / AR 635-200, Chapter 12 / RBD / RE-4R / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 31 January 2014 c. Separation Facts: Based on the applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) the applicant was a member of the AGR program. At the time of separation, the applicant was being processed for separation from the ARNGUS and as a Reserve of the Army, under the provisions of AR 135-178, chapter 12-1c, commission of serious offense. The misconduct, which led to the separation from the ARNGUS was also used to separate the applicant from the AGR program. (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 June 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant’s sufficient service for retirement, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 12. As noted above in part 3c, the applicant was informed of the following reasons: In 2009, the applicant sent text messages to SPC A. F. in which the applicant told SPC A. F., SPC A. F. was attractive, and the applicant had sexual dreams about SPC A. F. in violation of USAREC 600- 25, para 2-1(a)(1)(a); AR 600-20, paragraphs 4-14(b), 4-15(b) and 4-16; AR 135-178, paragraph 12-1(c); AR 25-1, paragraph 6-1f; UCMJ Articles 92 and 134; From early 2008 through late 2009, the applicant engaged in inappropriate behavior towards SFC E. J., a Soldier under the applicant’s direct supervision, inquiring into the martial status and stating to SFC E. J. if the applicant had met in a bar, the applicant could “get SFC E. J.” if the applicant wanted to, in violation of AR 600-20, paragraph 4-14(b), 4-15(b), and 4-16; AR 135-178, paragraph 12-1(c); UCMJ Articles 92 and 134; In 2009, the applicant had an inappropriate sexual relationship with PFC W. A, a Soldier under the applicant’s supervision, while the applicant was married to another person, in violation of AR 600-20, paragraphs 4-14(b), 4-15(b), and 4-16; AR 135-178, paragraphs 12-1(c); UCMJ Articles 92 and 134; The applicant lied under oath concerning a sexual relationship with PFC A. and attempted to dissuade PFC A. and SFC E. P. from providing evidence against the applicant, in violation of AR 600-20, paragraphs 4-14(b), 4-15(b), and 4-16; AR 135-178, paragraph 12-1(c); UCMJ Article 92 and 134; At 0427 on 18 November 2012, the applicant engaged in inappropriate behavior towards SGT B. O., a Soldier under the applicant’s direct supervision, sending SGT O. a text message in which the applicant stated: “I’m looking to have my Cock sucked hard”, in violation of AR 600-20, paragraphs 4-14(b), 4-15(b), and 4-16; AR 135-178, paragraph 12-1(c); AR 25-1, paragraph 6-1f; UCMJ Articles. 92 and 134; In December 2011, the applicant sexually assaulted and raped A. L. in violation of AR 600-20, paragraphs 4-14(b), 4-15(b) and 4-16; AR 135-178, paragraph 12-1(c); UCMJ, Articles 92, 120 and 134; From 2008 through 2012, the applicant obtained and provided steroids to other Soldiers, including PFC R. P and SFC E. P., Soldiers under the applicant’s direct supervision, and pressured them to use them, in violation of AR 600-20, paragraphs 4-14(b), 4-15(b) and 4-16; AR 135-178, paragraph 12-1(c), UCMJ, Article 92 and 134; From 5 May 2013 through 26 July 2013, the applicant engaged in a sexual relationship with D. G., while the applicant was married, in violation of AR 600-20, paragraphs 4-14(b), 4-15(b) and 4-16; AR135-178, paragraph 12-1(c); UCMJ, Article 92 and 134; From 2008 through 2013, the applicant purchased and used steroids in violation of AR 600-20m paragraphs 4-14(b), 4-15(b) and 4-16; AR 135-178, paragraph 12-1(c); UCMJ, Articles 92 and 134; From 2008 through 2013, the applicant abused their rank and position and mistreated Soldiers under the applicant’s supervision, to include SFC E. J., SSG J. C., SSG A. L., SSG J. M., SFC D. G., SFC T. K., SFC B. S., SFC H. K., SSG M. W., SSG N. F., MSG R. M., SFC E. P., L. T., SFC J. B., SSG N. M., through inappropriate behavior, favoritism, disparate and inequitable treatment, unjustified punishment, threats, coercion, and intimidation, physical threats, failure to maintain discipline and order within the ranks, violation of regulations pertaining to alcohol use and use of government service automobiles and credit cards, sexual harassment, discrimination, slander, inappropriate comments, and mistreatment. On numerous occasions the applicant abused their rank and position, threatening the continued employment of these Soldiers in the Army Guard Reserve program, unless they complied with the applicant’s demands. This behavior and these actions are in violation of AR 600-20, paragraphs 4-14(b), 4-15(b) and 4-16 AR 135- 178, paragraph 12-1(c); AR 25-1, paragraph 6-1f; UCMJ, Articles 92 and 134; On numerous occasions the applicant misused the government service automobile for unauthorized travel in violation of AR 600-20, paragraphs 4-14(b), 4-15(b) and 4-16; AR 135- 178, paragraph 12-1(c); UCMJ, Articles 92 and 134 AR 600-20, paragraphs 4-14(b) 4-15(b) and 4-16; AR 135-178, paragraph 12-1(c); UCMJ, Articles 92 and 134; On numerous occasions the applicant permitted Soldiers under the applicant’s supervision to misuse government service automobiles for unauthorized travel in violation of AR 600- 20, paragraphs 4-14(b), 4-15(b) and 4-16; AR 135-178, paragraph 12-1(c); UCMJ, Articles 92 and 134; The applicant engaged in an inappropriate behavior towards SFC T. B., a Soldier under the applicant’s supervision, showing up unannounced at SFC T. B.’s apartment and then letting oneself in without permission, in violation of AR 600-20, paragraphs 4-14(b), 4-15(b) and 4-16; AR 135-178, paragraph 12-1(c); AR 600-85, paragraph 3-2; UCMJ, Articles 92 and 134; The applicant engaged in an inappropriate behavior with SGT E. S., a Soldier under the applicant’s supervision, flirting, with SGT E. S., touching SGT E. S., texting inappropriate and sexual messages to SGT E. S., discussing the applicant’s personal marital issues with SGT. E. S., and inviting oneself to SGT E. S.’s residence, in violation of AR 600-20, paragraphs 4-14(b), 4-15(b) and 4-16; AR 135-178, paragraph 12-1(c); AR 600-85, paragraph 3-2; UCMJ, Articles 92 and 134; The applicant engaged in inappropriate behavior towards the spouse of SSG J. S., a Soldier under the applicant’s supervision, making sexual advances towards the spouse while SSG S. was deployed, and subsequently, on 17 January 2013, sitting next to SSG S’s spouse at a WWE event and telling the spouse the applicant was having sexual relations with numerous people, while the applicant was married, in violation of AR 600-20, paragraphs 4-14(b), 4-15(b) and 4-16; AR 135-178, paragraph 12-1(c); AR 600-85, paragraph 3-2; UCMJ, Articles 92 and 134; During a recruiting event in October of 2008, while driving from Anchorage to Fairbanks, Alaska, the applicant used the GSA vehicle to force a civilian vehicle to come to a stop. This action took place in front of junior NCOs and enlisted members under the applicant’s supervision, was dangerous, and could have been disastrous, in violation of AR 600-20, paragraphs 4-14(b), 4-15(b) and 4-16; AR 135-178, paragraph 12-1(c); AR 600-20, paragraph 7-3; AR 600-85, paragraph 3-2; UCMJ, Articles 92 and 134; and, On numerous occasions, the applicant engaged in inappropriate behavior with Soldiers under the applicant’s supervision, encouraged them to consume alcohol to excess and sexually harassed them in violation of AR 600-20, paragraphs 4-14(b), 4-15(b) and 4-16; AR 135-178, paragraph 12-1(c); AR 600-20, paragraph 7-3; AR 600-85, paragraph 3-2; UCMJ, Articles 92 and 134. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 31 January 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 22 July 2014, the administrative separation board convened, and the applicant appeared with counsel. The Board determined nine of the eighteen reasons listed in the notification memorandum were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. On 20 October 2014, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 October 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 October 2005 b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 30 / some college / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-8 / 79T50, Recruit/Retention NCO (NG) / 20 years, 6 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USMC, 28 September 1993 – 27 September 1997 / HD USMCR, 28 September 1997 – 9 April 1998 / NIF RA, 10 April 1998 – 1 August 2005 / HD ARNG, 2 August 2005 – 30 September 2005 e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (20 October 2003 – 30 June 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: BSM, ARCOM-3, AAM, AGCM-3, MCGCM, NDSM-2, KSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR, USN & USMC OSR g. Performance Ratings: 1 August 2006 – 31 July 2007 / Fully Capable 1 August 2007 – 31 July 2009 / Among the Best 1 August 2009 – 31 May 2012 / Among the Best 1 June 2012 – 20 October 2014 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 7 November 2012, reflects the applicant was reprimanded for the misuse of a government vehicle, in violation of NGR 601-1, CH 9-25, and Command Policy #1108, and for abuse of subordinates. The applicant used government property for personal use also violated the Department of Defense Joint Ethics Regulation. The applicant used a government vehicle to move personal household goods from the old residence to the new residence. The applicant abused the rank and authority by having subordinates perform personal work, during duty hours, by moving the applicant’s personal household goods from the old residence to the new residence. The applicant’s misconduct was a gross violation of regulations and good order and discipline. The applicant’s action demonstrates a lack of maturity and good judgment, and violate the Army’s core values of leadership, loyalty, duty and honor. The applicant’s actions have brought discredit to oneself, Recruiting and Retention, and the Alaska Army National Guard. Orders 294-006, dated 21 October 2014, reflect the applicant was reduced in grade from E-8 to E-1, effective 20 October 2014 for misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of a VA Rating Decision letter, dated 20 June 2016, which reflects the applicant was granted 100 percent service-connected disability for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) (also claimed as major depression and insomnia and memory loss) effective 1 November 2014. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Superior Court of Alaska Court Document; VA Rating Decision. 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 135-178 prescribes the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. (1) Paragraph 2-9a prescribes an honorable characterization 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. (2) Paragraph 2-9b, prescribes, if a Soldier’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as general (under honorable conditions). Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of the Soldier’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the Soldier’s military record. (3) Paragraph 2-9c, prescribes the service may be characterized as under other than honorable conditions only when discharge is for misconduct, fraudulent entry, unsatisfactory participation, or security reasons, and under other circumstances. (4) Chapter 11 (previously Chapter 12), 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, and convictions by civil authorities. 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 11-1c, prescribes for the separation for a commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant discharge and a punitive discharge would be authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the UCMJ. (6) Paragraph 11-8, states an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge may be granted. e. Army Regulation 635-200 Chapter 12 sets policies and procedures for voluntary retirement of Soldiers because of length of service and governs the retirement of Soldiers (Active Army, ARNGUS, and USAR) who are retiring in their enlisted status. f. Army Regulation 635-1-1 (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 “RBD” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 12, “Sufficient Service for Retirement.” 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-4R Applies to: Person who retired for length of service with 15 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’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the complete specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the applicant’s discharge from the Army National Guard. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated with the applicant’s electronic signature. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 12, by reason of Sufficient Service for Retirement, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided a copy of a VA Rating Decision letter, dated 20 June 2016, which reflects the applicant was granted 100 percent service-connected disability for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) (also claimed as major depression and insomnia and memory loss) effective 1 November 2014. The AMHRR does not contain a mental status evaluation (MSE). The applicant desires full military medical retirement at the full rank/grade with all honors and benefits. The applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 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. 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, Anxiety, PTSD, TBI, Major Depression. . (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, PTSD, TBI, and Major Depression. The VA has also service connected applicant’s PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, PTSD, TBI, and Major Depression. The VA has also service connected applicant’s PTSD. However, none of applicant’s BH conditions provide medical mitigation for the misconduct that led to separation since there is no natural sequela between any of the conditions and inappropriate sexual relationships with subordinates, abuse of power, sexual assault/rape, purchase/use of steroids, or inappropriate use of government vehicles. (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, Anxiety, PTSD, TBI, Major Depression outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – inappropriate sexual relationships, abuse of power, rape, purchase/use of steroids, and inappropriate use of government vehicles – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The Board considered this contention and determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, PTSD, TBI, Major Depression outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation as there is no natural sequela between any of the conditions and the nature and severity of the applicant’s offenses. (2) The applicant desires full military medical retirement at the full rank/grade with all honors and benefits. The Board determined that the applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 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. 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, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, PTSD, TBI, Major Depression outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – inappropriate sexual relationships, abuse of power, rape, purchase/use of steroids, and inappropriate use of government vehicles. The Board further considered the applicant’s contentions and found there is insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command resulting in any inequity. 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 UOTHC was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to HD. (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 AR20210002802 1