1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, on 14 November 2005, the applicant enlisted in the Army for eight years. In February 2006, the applicant claims applicant was stationed in Fort Sam Houston. On 14 April 2006, a military police investigator found four suspected cocaine rocks in the barracks room of Private S. Applicant claims a police investigation discovered PVT S. provided the cocaine to the applicant. On 15 June 2006, applicant claims Staff Sergeant (SSG) M. drafted a memorandum of record revealing the applicant admitted to suffering from anxiety and depression and the Army was unaware the applicant took medication or was previously institutionalized. On 16 June 2006, the applicant claims applicant received an Article 15, UCMJ for failure to obey an order or regulation, by consuming alcohol while underage. The applicant GD in 2013 under CH 14-12B, Patterns of misconduct, JKA, RE-3. Subsequently upgraded by ADRB to HD, JKA. Board discussed misconduct of disrespect, FTRs, and sleeping on duty. Applicant contends PTSD and MST contributed to her behavior; Issues of length, Combat service and quality; applicant offered no post-service accomplishments. Agency medical provider opined the applicant was diagnosed in service with Adjustment Disorder, Unspecified Anxiety Disorder, and Depression. She is also diagnosed and service connected by the VA with PTSD and has been diagnosed post service by the VA with a psychotic condition. Given the nexus between PTSD, avoidance, and difficulty with authority, applicant's PTSD was likely contributory to her FTRs and disrespect. And given that sleep issues are a symptom of Depression, there may have been an association between applicant's Depression and failing to remain awake on extra duty. In a vote of 5 to 0 the board decided to change the characterization to HD JKN claims applicant admitted to using cocaine during a Criminal Investigation Division interview. The applicant claims applicant was counseled for drinking alcohol underage, driving and riding in a personal vehicle, wearing civilian clothes, and going off post while in Phase IV of training. The applicant claims applicant was found guilty of the offenses under Article 15. The applicant claims applicant's chain of command initiated separation and the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the separation action, which included a letter of recommendation from SSG F.T., Drill Sergeant. Applicant claims Command Sergeant Major (CSM) M. drafted a memorandum indicating the CSM did not believe the applicant showed remorse regarding the misconduct and recommended separation. The applicant claims separation was approved and the applicant was discharged on 8 December 2006. The applicant served a total of 1 year and 11 months. The applicant accepts responsibility for the misconduct and realizes several mistakes while assigned to Fort Sam Houston. The applicant claims applicant was only eighteen years and not mature enough to handle the rigors which were demanded of the Army. Since being discharged, the applicant claims applicant sought treatment and has been diagnosed with Bipolar Disease. The applicant claims doctor states the applicant has suffered from Bipolar Disease which was "untreated for many years." Applicant claims if the chain of command had known about the applicant's various mental health issues, the applicant would have been afforded the opportunity to enter the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) to have the chance to rehabilitate and receive the required mental health treatment. After discharge, the applicant claims applicant has consistently been employed, including being a manager at Taco Bell for 18 months. The applicant earned an Associate's and a Bachelor's Degree. The applicant claims applicant received a Clinical Medical Assisting Certificate and is currently employed as a Certified Clinical Phlebotomist. The applicant claims applicant is considering becoming a Registered Nurse. The applicant claims applicant is married and the parent of two children. The applicant claims unfavorable discharge has been a significant barrier to overcome due to the stigma. The applicant claims applicant was suffering from mental health issues which impacted the ability to properly serve and should be viewed as significant mitigating factors. Despite these issues, the applicant claims applicant has been a valuable member of the community. The applicant claims applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and change the narrative reason and separation code to reflect "miscellaneous" (Secretarial Authority). In a records review conducted on 26 May 2022, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board, based on the applicant's post-service accomplishments, determined the narrative reason for the applicant's separation is now inequitable. Therefore, the Board directed the issue of a new DD Form 214 changing the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. The Board determined the characterization of service was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 8 December 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 November 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant wrongfully used cocaine and failed to obey lawful orders on two separate occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 21 November 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 December 2006 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 November 2005 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 1 year, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum, subject: Legal Blood Alcohol Test (LBAT)/ Breathalyzer, dated 15 June 2006. The applicant's commander requested an LBAT/breathalyzer be administered on the applicant. The applicant's LBAT tested at .08 BAC. Memorandum for Record, dated 15 June 2006, reflects the applicant admitted to SSG J.M. the need for a mental evaluation and the applicant had gone too many days without medication. The applicant indicated the medication was for depression and was in a mental institution. The reason the applicant did not disclose the condition was because the applicant believed it would have prevented the ability to join the Army. CG Article 15, dated 28 June 2006, for failing to obey a lawful order issued by CPT M.R., by wrongfully consuming an alcoholic beverage in the barracks and while being under the legal drinking age (16 June 2006). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $297 pay (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. CID Report of Investigation - Initial Final, dated 13 July 2006, reflects in investigation the applicant provided a Sworn Statement admitting to being given cocaine and using cocaine with Private/E-2 S. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 20 July 2006, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 28 June 2006, was vacated for: Article 92, failure to obey a lawful order issued by COL B.F. by wrongfully consuming alcohol, being off post, and driving a POV. FG Article 15, dated 8 August 2006, for failing to obey a lawful order issued by Colonel B.F., by wrongfully consuming alcohol, driving a POV, and being off-post (12 July 2006). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $636 pay per month for two months and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. FG Article 15, dated 24 October 2006, for wrongfully using cocaine (between 8 and 9 April 2006). The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $636 pay per month for two months and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 27 October 2006, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible, could distinguish right from wrong, and could understand and participate intelligently in any administrative proceedings. the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct and Cocaine Abuse. The applicant provided Glenwood Medical Associates letter, dated 19 September 2013, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with Bipolar Disease and the applicant suffered from the disease, which was untreated for many years. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; legal brief; enlistment documents; separation documents, with rebuttal and third party statements; civilian medical documents; college attendance documents. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends maintaining employment, to include being a manager for 18 months and currently employed as a Certified Clinical Phlebotomist; earning Associate's and Bachelor's Degrees and a Clinical Medical Assisting Certificate; and being married and the mother of two children; and a valuable member of the community. 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 Service member discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Service member'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 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. (7) Paragraph 14-12c (2) terms abuse of illegal drugs as serious misconduct. It continues; however, by recognizing relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct and processed for separation under paragraph 14- 12a or 14-12b as appropriate. 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 "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (drug abuse). 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 non-waiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-4 applies to a person separated from last period of service with a non-waiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years' active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed to Secretarial Authority. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Drug Abuse)," and the separation code is "JKK." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), is "JKK." The applicant contends Anxiety, Depression, and undiagnosed Bipolar Disease affected behavior and ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant provided medical documents reflecting a diagnosis of Bipolar Disease. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 27 October 2006, annotated in the Chronological Record of Medical Care, which reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible, could distinguish right from wrong, and could understand and participate intelligently in any administrative proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct and Cocaine Abuse. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends if the command would have known about mental health conditions, the applicant would have been provided proper rehabilitation through ASAP. Army Regulation 600- 85, paragraph 7-3 entitled voluntary (self) identification and referral, states voluntary (self) ID is the most desirable method of identifying substance use disorder. The individual whose performance, social conduct, interpersonal relations, or health becomes impaired because of these problems has the personal obligation to seek help. Soldiers seeking self-referral for problematic substance use may access services through BH services for a SUD evaluation. The Limited Use Policy exists to encourage Soldiers to proactively seek help. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends good service. The third party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant and recognizes the applicant's good service in the Army. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends maintaining employment, to include being a manager for 18 months and currently employed as a Certified Clinical Phlebotomist; earning Associate's and Bachelor's Degrees and a Clinical Medical Assisting Certificate; and being married and the parent of two children; and, being a valuable member of the community. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found applicant had evidence of depression, anxiety, and Adjustment Disorder that could mitigate the wrongful drug use and failure to obey lawful orders on two separate occasions that were the basis for applicant's separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found evidence that applicant had depression, anxiety and Adjustment Disorder during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration opined that none of applicant's BH conditions were associated with the wrongful drug use and failure to obey lawful orders on two separate occasions, and therefore do not actually mitigate the applicant's basis for separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. The Board, after applying liberal consideration, concurred with the Board's Medical Advisor that the applicant's BH conditions to not outweigh the unmitigated basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed to Secretarial Authority. The Board considered this contention and voted to change the narrative reason to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) because of the inequity that exists when considering applicant's post-service accomplishments in relation to applicant's basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. The Board voted to change the SPD code. The Board considered this contention and voted to change the SPD in connection to the narrative reason change to Misconduct (Minor Infractions). (3) The applicant contends Anxiety, Depression, and undiagnosed Bipolar Disease affected behavior and ultimately led to the discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention but found none of the applicant's BH conditions outweighed the unmitigated basis for applicant's separation. (4) The applicant contends if the command would have known about mental health conditions, the applicant would have been provided proper rehabilitation through ASAP. Army Regulation 600-85, paragraph 7-3 entitled voluntary (self) identification and referral, states voluntary (self) ID is the most desirable method of identifying substance use disorder, and separately the command must decide whether or not the soldier is rehabilitatable, but the Board determined in this case, the separation was appropriate. The Board also concluded that the AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. (5) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not excuse the misconduct. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined that applicant was mentally responsible, could distinguish right from wrong, and chose not to act in the right. (6) The applicant contends good service. The Board determined the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant's service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By wrongfully using cocaine and failure to obey lawful orders on two separate occasions, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (7) The applicant contends maintaining employment, to include being a manager for 18 months and currently employed as a Certified Clinical Phlebotomist; earning Associate's and Bachelor's Degrees and a Clinical Medical Assisting Certificate; and being married and the parent of two children; and, being a valuable member of the community. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in- service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. In this case, the Board determined that applicant's post-service accomplishments warranted a narrative reason and corresponding SPD code change. c. The Board determined, based on the applicant's post-service accomplishments, that the narrative reason for the applicant's separation is now 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, Acute Stress Disorder, ADHD, Unspecified Anxiety Disorder, and bipolar disease did not outweigh the unmitigated offenses of wrongfully using cocaine and failure to obey lawful orders on two separate occasions, and the discharge characterization was both proper and equitable. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) based on the inequity when considering applicant's post-service accomplishments, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a Authenticating Official: Legend: ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 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 AR20210002988 1