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: 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, this discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 30 years of faithful, meritorious service with no other adverse action. The applicant requests an upgrade to obtain better employment and maintain a security clearance. The applicant contends the illegality and the impropriety were not followed before discharge. The applicant contends that the applicant was unlawfully ordered to remove all skill badges and awards, which was done without a federal court order. The applicant states, according to the unit SJA, the documents from over 40 years ago looked "ingenious, suspect," and "edited," but merely looking at the documents and coming to an opinion they "do not look right" was not sufficient to allege the applicant committed fraud. Doctor. C.'s email states, "Army training systems are not designed to maintain records for more than 20 years." The applicant states that the gross negligence should have deemed this investigation as legally sufficient. The applicant states that the SJA further violated a conflict of interest in helping the 15-6 investigating officer recommendation and preparing it for submission. The applicant states it was a conflict of interest for the SJA to serve as the 15-6 legal advisor. The applicant states that on 26 February 2017, the Army Reserve command rescinded the initial order to remove all skill badges and awards, which allowed the applicant to wear them. Afterward, the applicant states the applicant was given another order by the active duty command not to wear the skill badges and awards, regardless of the rescinded order by the Army Reserve command. The applicant states that the applicant could no longer afford to fund an attorney, and the decision was made to accept a Chapter 10, General Discharge, Under Honorable Conditions, but the discharge was immediately disapproved without any consideration. Since joining the Reserves, the applicant states that the applicant never missed a Battle Assembly or Annual Training. In a records review conducted on 14 June 2022, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions. 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 21 June 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 13 December 2016, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violating Article 107, UCMJ, for Specifications 1 and 2: The applicant on or about 6 and 7 February 2015, with intent to deceive signed an official record to wit: Personnel Records Review Form, which record was false in the applicant was not a graduate of the Ranger Course, the Sapper Leader Course (SLC), the Fort Benning Infantry Training Course and XVIll Airborne Corps Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC), and was then known-by the applicant to be false. Specification 3: The applicant on or about 31 May 2012, with intent to deceive signed an official record to wit: DA Form 2-1, Personnel Qualification Record, which record was false, the applicant was not a graduate of the Ranger Course, the Fort Benning Infantryman Course, the XVllI Airborne Corps Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC), an Administrative Specialist Basic Noncommissioned Officer's Course (BNCOC), an Administrative Specialist Advanced Noncommissioned Officer's Course (ANCOC), the Explosive! Ordnance Disposal Specialist Course, the Sapper Leader Course (SLC), and was not an authorized recipient of the Combat Infantry Badge (CIB), and was then known by the applicant to be false. Specification 4: The applicant on or about 14 October 2012, with the intent to deceive, make to CSM H., an official statement, to wit: "I have taken the necessary steps to reconcile personnel records, awards and decorations with the assistance from the RPAC Supervisors Ms. K., and Ms. M., Records Custodian Mr. M., 3rd BDE CSM L., and have removed all awards/decorations in question from uniform which could not be verified" or words to effect, which statement was totally false and was then known by the applicant to be false. Specification 5: on or about 7 February 2015, with intent to deceive, submit to Ms. Z., official records. to wit: a Ranger Certificate dated 15 May 1978, an XVIII Airborne Corps PLDC diploma, dated June 1980, a Fort Benning Infantry Training Course Certificate, dated 18 August 2000, and a Sapper Certificate dated 23 August 2002, which records were totally false, and was then known by the applicant to be false. Specification 6: on or about 6 February 2015, with intent to deceive, submit to Mr. C., official records. to wit: a Ranger Certificate dated 15 May 1978, an XVIII Airborne Corps PLDC diploma dated June 1980, a Fort Benning Infantry Training Course Certificate, dated 18 August 2000, and a Sapper Certificate, dated 23 August 2002, which records were totally false, and was then known by the applicant to be false. Charge II: Violating Article 134, UCMJ, for Specification 1: on divers occasions. between on or about 14 October 2012 and on or about 31 May 2015, wrongfully and without authority wear upon uniform the Ranger Tab, The Master Parachutist Badge, the Combat Infantry Badge, and the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Badge, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. Specification 2: on divers occasions, between on or about 6 June 2015 and 24 June 2015, wrongfully and without authority wear upon uniform the Ranger Tab, The Master Parachutist Badge, the Combat Infantry Badge, and the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Badge such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 27 March 2017 (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: 10 April 2017 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: Orders 98-700, dated 24 October 2018, reflects the applicant was ordered to active duty for the purpose of UCMJ, effective 28 November 2016, until completion. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 57 / Bachelor's Degree / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-8 / 42A50, Human Resources / 30 years, 2 months 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 3 October 1977 - 3 April 1984 / HD (Break in Service) ARNG, 29 September 1993 - 15 April 2005 / HD USAR, 16 April 2005 - 14 July 2008 / HD USAR, 15 July 2008 - 27 November 2016 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Grenada, Korea, SWA / Iraq (1 January 1991 - 1 June 1991; 1 November 1993 - 1 November 1994) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM-2, ASR, OSR-1, AFEMA, AFRM, VANGSR-3, ARCAM-6, The applicant's AMHRR reflects award of the NDSM-3, ICM, ARCOM-V, KLM (SA), KLM (K), GWOTSM, GWOTEM, SWASR-3BS, ARCOTR, however, the awards are not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: NIF h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Finding of Inquiry of Unauthorized Wear dated 12 January 2015, reflects LTC A., the investigating officer reviewed documents from the applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), copies of earning statements (LES) from October 1977 to April 1984, and correspondence from two school custodians of records. LTC A., reported no documents to support the wear of a Combat Infantry Badge, an Explosive Ordnance Disposal Badge-basic, a Master Parachutist badge, or a Ranger Tab in the applicant's official DA photo taken 3 March 2014, or on or about, 1 November 2014, during the 3rd Medical Training Brigade Dining-in as reported by CSM C.. LTC A. conducted a thorough investigation which included approximately18 exhibits. The applicant was given an opportunity to provide a statement; however, failed to provide one prior to the close of the investigation. On 5 October 2015, LTC A. completed the investigation of the above issues and generated a report with findings and recommendations. To summarize, LTC A., concluded the applicant's Official Military Personnel File included invalid schooling and course certificates of which many were forgeries demonstrating a consistent pattern of false documents and unsupported claims. LTC A. recommended a separation of the applicant from the military at a lower rank commensurate with the true and accurate military record. LTC A. also recommended Uniform Code of Military Justice (CCMJ) action be taken. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 23 July 2015, reflects a Commander's Inquiry investigation pursuant to Rule for Court-Martial (RCM) 303 has concluded the applicant, as a non-commissioned officer did, in violation of UCMJ Article 134 paragraph 113, wrongfully wear four unauthorized items on uniform, to wit: The Combat Infantry Badge, an Explosive Ordnance Disposal Badge-basic, a Master Parachutist Badge, or a Ranger Tab in the applicant's official DA photo taken on or about 3 March 2014. The Combat Infantry Badge, an Explosive Ordnance Disposal Badge-basic, a Master Parachutist Badge, or a Ranger Tab on or about 1 November 2014 during the 3rd Medical Training Brigade Dining-in. Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 April 2017, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided VA notes, dated 19 August 2019, page 87 reflects a diagnosis of DSM 5 Diagnosis: Nightmare disorder, Unspecified depressive disorder and Rem sleep behavior disorder. The applicant provided an undated letter, which reflects, the applicant has a medical history of PTSD, Hyper insomnia, Sleep Apnea. The applicant provided a letter, dated 22 February 2019, which reflects the applicant is currently under a doctor's care for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 293; four congratulations letters; 14-character reference letters; Certificate of Achievement; Three Certificates of Appreciation; DoD Financial Management Certification Level two; Memorandum for Rescission of orders; Two DA Forms 4856; Rebuttal Statement to GOMOR; One NCOER; The Honorable Order of Saint Barbara; Department of the Army Certificate; Memorandum for Record 2-1; Joint Civilian Service Achievement award; Executive Comptroller Course 16-III Certificate; Intermediate Course DL Phase Certificate; VA Medical records. 6. Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant has volunteered within the community service-oriented organization; Children's Hunger Fund, Saint Jude Children's Hospital and Wounded Warrior Project for the last several years and assisted fellow Veterans in seeking employment and applying for VA benefits. The applicant attends regular religious services and is a contributing member of society. The applicant's current employer has given additional duties and responsibilities; Government Purchase Card Administrator, ATAAPS Timekeeper for the organization, DOD Financial Management Certification Administrator, Internal Auditing and Request for Personnel Actions (RPA) and other civilian personnel actions and records. The applicant continues to make personal improvements and enrolled in continuing education courses within the Federal Government. The applicant also serves as the G8 Operations Officer responsible for Financial Management Operations for the Joint Force Land Component Command with the current operations Southwest Border Support. The applicant has been a great citizen, Soldier, parent and step-parent. The applicant continues to maintain the highest standards of loyalty, duty, respect, honor, integrity and personal courage. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) Chapter 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. (6) 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.) (7) 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. (8) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends currently being treated for PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating diagnosed with a diagnosis of DSM 5 Diagnosis: Nightmare disorder, Unspecified depressive disorder and Rem sleep behavior disorder. The applicant also provided two letters reflecting a medical history of PTSD, Hyper insomnia, Sleep Apnea and currently under a doctor's care for PTSD. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 25 April 2017, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5c stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends the illegality and the impropriety were not followed before the discharge. The applicant contends, unlawfully ordered to remove all skill badges and awards, which was done without a federal court order. The applicant contends the SJA violated a conflict of interest by helping the 15-6 investigating officer recommendation and preparing it for submission. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions 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 contends volunteering within the community service-oriented organization; Children's Hunger Fund, Saint Jude Children's Hospital and Wounded Warrior Project for the last several years and assisted fellow Veterans in seeking employment and applying for VA benefits. 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. They all recognize the applicant's good conduct during and after leaving the Army. 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? 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 ADD and PTSD may mitigate the applicant's basis of separation - falsifying records, false official statements, wrongfully wearing badges without authority. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant's ADD and PTSD existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor determined that the applicant's ADD and PTSD do not mitigate the applicant's bases of separation - falsifying records, false official statements, wrongfully wearing badges without authority as there is no association between the applicant's ADD and PTSD and the applicant's misconduct (falsifying records, false official statements, wrongfully wearing badges without authority) because ADD and PTSD do not interfere with one's ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. (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 the applicant's ADD and PTSD do not outweigh the applicant's unmitigated basis for separation - falsifying records, false official statements, wrongfully wearing badges without authority. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends currently being treated for PTSD by the VA. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that the applicant's PTSD do not outweigh the applicant's unmitigated basis for separation - falsifying records, false official statements, wrongfully wearing badges without authority. (2) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (3) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's discharge was in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5c which authorizes separation based on conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident. In this case, the applicant was charged with multiple specifications involving misconduct for falsifying records, false official statements, and wrongfully wearing badges without authority. Therefore, no change is warranted. (4) The applicant contends the illegality and the impropriety was not followed before discharge. The applicant contends the applicant was unlawfully ordered to remove all skill badges and awards, which was done without a federal court order. The applicant contends the SJA violated a conflict of interest by helping the 15-6 investigating officer recommendation and preparing it for submission. The Board considered this contention and determined the weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that the Command acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (5) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to General Under Honorable Conditions because the applicant's 30 years of service, including combat and significant post-service accomplishments. The Board, despite applying liberal consideration, determined that the applicant's ADD and PTSD did not outweigh the applicant's unmitigated basis for separation - falsifying records, false official statements, wrongfully wearing badges without authority to warrant a HD discharge upgrade. The Board also considered the applicant's contentions of impropriety regarding the requirement of a court order to order removal of badges and the SJA conflict of interest and found that there was no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions warranting a HD 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 is 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 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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions 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 AR20210003168 1