1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant is a decorated combat veteran who fought in Afghanistan. The applicant states that applicant’s discharge was improper and inequitable, based on a purported request for a Chapter 10, for “wrongful use of a controlled substance.” The applicant states that in late 2010, the applicant’s command investigated an alleged hashish ring in Afghanistan, but the applicant never tested positive for the drug. The applicant states that a noncommissioned officer (NCO), who hazed the applicant, coerced the applicant’s confession to the military police while the applicant was suffering from Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The applicant states that applicant’s deployment led to an in- service diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Insomnia (PTI), later confirmed as PTSD, and therefore the discharge was fundamentally flawed. The applicant states that there was no positive urinalysis, the applicant’s confession was coerced, and key Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) procedures were not followed. The applicant states that applicant endured a hostile command and improper, arbitrary, and capricious decisions prejudiced the applicant. The applicant states that applicant’s Command’s conduct, ranging from excessive punishment to improper separation proceedings leads to the conclusion the discharge is inequitable. The applicant states that immediately prior to the discharge, the applicant’s command described the applicant as “a hard worker [with] consistent work ethic, [who] works well with peers, and does not question authority.” Counsel further describes the applicant’s early life, enlistment, pre-deployment (one- time) marijuana use, experiences in Afghanistan, other stressors and mental health challenges, and meritorious service. Counsel explains the reason the applicant requested Chapter 10 and how the applicant attempted to inform mental health professionals of the mental issues prior to returning to the United States. The applicant states that applicant’s upgrade should be granted due to diagnosed PTSD. The applicant states that applicant’s command failed to properly screen the applicant for PTSD according to 10 U.S.C, section 1177, passed in 2009. The applicant states that recent guidance mandates liberal consideration in accordance with the Hagel Memo and Kurta Memo. The applicant states that applicant was not informed of the charges, the command failed to follow summary court-martial procedures, and failed to ensure an impartial investigation prior to accepting the applicant’s request for Chapter 10. The applicant states that applicant is happily married and volunteers to assist veterans and others in need. The applicant states that applicant helped search for a missing Marine and reached out to help a suicidal veteran along with a veteran law student. The applicant states that applicant serves as the Social Media Director for the Gateway Chapter of the 101st Airborne Division and as the Regional Director of the Veterans Alliance for Compassionate Access, a bipartisan group of veterans seeking to improve veteran rights nationwide. The applicant requests an honorable discharge and a narrative reason change to a medical discharge. Counsel requests, prior to initiating the decision process, a copy of all documents which would be considered by the Board. The applicant further details the contentions in a self-authored statement submitted with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 14 July 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 8 April 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): NIF (2) Legal Consultation Date: 16 February 2011 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 February 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 April 2009 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / HS Graduate / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (26 April 2010 – 21 March 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant provided Military Police Report, dated 7 January 2011, which reflects the applicant was under investigation for Wrongful Use of a Controlled Substance under Article 112a, UCMJ (on post). The investigation revealed on 23 December 2010, the FOB Fenty Military Police Station was notified by the First Sergeant regarding two urinalysis tests which returned positive within the unit for hashish. One of the Soldiers who tested positive, confessed, and provided the names of other subjects involved and of the supplier. The military police conducted interviews and searches, to include K-9. The applicant was interviewed and confessed to using and possessing hashish daily for several months. The applicant admitted to witnessing others possessing and smoking hashish. The applicant indicated being introduced to hashish by a local national. Commander’s Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action, dated 15 February 2011, reflects the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Use of a Controlled Substance, under Article 112a, UCMJ (26 December 2010). The applicant was tried by summary court-martial and the punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $738 pay; 45 days extra duty; and an oral admonition. Memorandum, subject: Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial [Applicant], dated 16 February 2011, reflects the applicant, in consultation with the defense counsel, requested, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial due the charge Article 112a, UCMJ, Wrongful Use of Controlled Substance, which was preferred against the applicant. The applicant provided a Department of Veterans Affairs, Statement in Support of Claim, dated 21 April 2015, which reflects the applicant’s military defense counsel provided a statement on the applicant’s behalf. The defense counsel indicated the applicant denied using hash but contemplated accepting the separation for fear of being a target if the applicant fought the charges and remained in the unit. The defense counsel reiterated the available options, and the applicant chose the administrative separation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided: Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated between 10 September 2010 and 4 February 2011, which reflects diagnoses: Post-Traumatic Insomnia; Psychiatric Diagnosis or Condition Deferred on Axis I; Assessment Combat Operational Stress Reaction; Marital Conflict, recent divorce, family issues, child custody issues, poor health of mother; Relational Problem; Occupational Problem. On 20 December 2010, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation for a pending AR 635-200, Chapter 14, for a positive urinalysis for marijuana and was cleared for separation. The applicant was diagnosed with occupational stressors; Axis II deferred; and Axis V: GAF of 70. The command noted the Servicemember was a hard worker, had consistent work ethic, works well with peers, and does not question authority. Post-Deployment Health Assessment (PDHA), dated 6 March 2011, reflects the medical provider indicated there was a minor concern for depression symptoms and PTSD symptoms. The provider commented mTBI – Still with persistent symptoms, mostly headaches and insomnia. The provider referred the applicant to Primary Care, Family Practice; Behavioral Health in Primary Care; and the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Center. Daniel Forensic Psychiatric Services, Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 13 August 2015, reflects the applicant was evaluated on 22 and 29 July 2015, at the request of the applicant’s attorney, to determine if the applicant was insane as defined by the VA when the applicant accepted a bad conduct discharge in lieu of court-martial in February 2011. The applicant was diagnosed with: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Moderately Severe, Chronic with Active Symptoms, under no treatment; Tinnitus, Nephrolithiasis and Musculoskeletal Pain; and Problem with Primary Support System and Financial Stress. The applicant sustained severe combat trauma during deployment in Afghanistan. The applicant had been experiencing symptoms consistent with PTSD beginning September 2010. The applicant was insane at the time the applicant accepted an other than honorable conditions discharge. Despite the applicant was not involved in the hash ring, due to the applicant’s unstable mental state caused by PTSD, the applicant accepted the discharge. The applicant’s thinking, mood, and decision-making ability were severely disturbed at the time and using the VA definition, the applicant was insane. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Attorney Letter; Legal Brief with all listed exhibits A through V; Legal Brief with all listed exhibits A through Y, to include the applicant’s self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is happily married and volunteers to assist veterans and others in need. The applicant helped search for a missing Marine and reached out to help a suicidal veteran along with a veteran law student. The applicant serves as the Social Media Director for the Gateway Chapter of the 101st Airborne Division and as the Regional Director of the Veterans Alliance for Compassionate Access, a bipartisan group of veterans seeking to improve veteran rights nationwide. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. (5) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II.) (6) Paragraph 10b stipulates Soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier’s record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. 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 “KFS” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of AMHRR confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel, voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and indicated an understanding an under other than honorable conditions discharge could be received, and the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans’ benefits. The general under honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial,” and the separation code is “KFS.” 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 regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. The applicant contends PTSD and other mental stressors affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating in-service diagnoses: Post-Traumatic Insomnia; Psychiatric Diagnosis or Condition Deferred on Axis I; Combat Operational Stress Reaction; Marital Conflict; Relational Problem; Occupational Problem. The Chronological Record of Medical Care, reflects the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation, on 20 December 2010, for a pending AR 635-200, Chapter 14, for a positive urinalysis for marijuana and was cleared for separation. The applicant was diagnosed with occupational stressors; Axis II deferred; and Axis V: GAF of 70. The psychiatric evaluation, completed after the discharge, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Moderately Severe, Chronic with Active Symptoms and the applicant was insane at the time the applicant accepted the discharge. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends not being properly screened for PTSD in accordance with 10 U.S.C., section 1177. Public Law 111-84, 28 October 2009, Title 10, United States Code, Section 1177, establishes a medical examination is required before administrative separation for any Soldier who has deployed overseas in support of a contingency operation during the previous 24 months, and who is diagnosed with or reasonably asserts post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury. Any such Soldier will not be administratively separated under conditions other than honorable until the results of the medical examination have been reviewed by the separation authority. Paragraph 10-6, AR 635-200, states a medical examination is not required but may be requested by the Soldier. The applicant provided medical documents, which reflect the applicant was diagnosed with various mental health issues. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD after the discharge. The applicant contends the discharge was fundamentally flawed because there was no positive urinalysis; the applicant’s confession was coerced; and UCMJ procedures were not followed. The applicant provided a statement by the applicant’s military defense counsel, which indicated the applicant denied smoking the drug and after counsel advised the applicant of the options available, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant contends being hazed by an NCO and enduring a hostile command environment. The applicant provided third-party statements alledging a hostile command environment. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported any maltreatment by the command. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant requests to change the discharge to reflect a medical discharge. 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. The applicant contends being happily married; volunteering to assist veterans; and serving as a Social Media Director and the Regional Director of the Veterans Alliance for Compassionate Access. The applicant helped search for a missing Marine and reached out to help a suicidal veteran along with a veteran law student. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in- service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant and recognize the applicant’s good military service and post-service accomplishments. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. In reference to counsel’s request for pre-decisional documents, it is not the practice of the Army Review Boards Agency to provide pre-decisional documents prior to adjudication. Once the case has been adjudicated, the applicant and counsel will be provided a copy of the final decision. 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 applicant’s PTSD and Adjustment Disorder may mitigate the applicant’s basis for separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s PTSD and Adjustment disorder existed during service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that, the applicant’s PTSD partially mitigates the applicant’s use of a controlled substance basis of separation as self-medicating is part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD. However, the Board Medical Advisor concluded that the neither the applicant’s PTSD or Adjustment Disorder completely mitigate the applicant’s multiple wrongful uses of a controlled substance. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, and determined that neither the applicant’s PTSD or OBH outweigh the applicant’s partially mitigated multiple wrongful uses of a controlled substance. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, statements by counsel and applicant, and determined that no further relief is warranted. The applicant requested, and received, a Chapter 10 discharge in lieu of trial by court martial. There is no evidence of arbitrary or capricious acts by command and the applicant confessed to the charges when the applicant requested the current narrative reason for discharge under Chapter 10. (2) The applicant contends PTSD and other mental stressors affected behavior which led to the discharge and was not properly screened in accordance with 10 U.S.C, section 1177. The Board liberally considered this contention, including the applicant’s medical records that include a MSE conducted for purposes of separation and that the applicant requested a Chapter 10 discharge, in consultation with legal counsel, and determined that applicant’s PTSD did not outweigh the applicant’s partially mitigated basis of separation – multiple wrongful uses. Therefore, the current characterization of GD is proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends the discharge was fundamentally flawed because there was no positive urinalysis, the applicant’s confession was coerced, and UCMJ procedures were not followed. The Board considered this contention , but ultimately determined that no further relief is warranted. There is no evidence of the command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner warranting a discharge upgrade. (4) The applicant contends being hazed by an NCO and enduring a hostile command environment. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with hazing and command climate concerns, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (5) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record and determined that no further relief is warranted because the serious nature of the applicant’s misconduct outweighed the applicant’s length and quality of service, to include combat service and post-service accomplishments, and service- connected PTSD. (6) The applicant contends post-service accomplishments including being happily married, volunteering to assist veterans, serving as a Social Media Director and the Regional Director of the Veterans Alliance for Compassionate Access, search for a missing Marine and reached out to help a suicidal veteran along with a veteran law student as well as third-party statements recognizing the same. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service accomplishments does not warrant any change to the discharge because of the seriousness of the applicant’s offense (multiple wrongful drug use). Therefore, the applicant’s GD characterization is proper and equitable. 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, the applicant’s PTSD did not outweigh the seriousness of the applicant’s multiple wrongful drug uses. The Board also considered the applicant’s contentions of impropriety (coerced statement and hazing) and found that there was no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions warranting a discharge upgrade. Finally, the Board considered the applicant’s contentions of equity (good service, including combat and post service accomplishments) and determined that the totality of the applicant’s record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. 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 GD was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct feel 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, 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 AR20210002819 1