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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, applicant is asking the board to upgrade his discharge on grounds of clemency for the following reasons: the applicant was hospitalized, diagnosed, and treated for PTSD during the course of events which led to his discharge; his PTSD was directly responsible for his grossly out-of-character actions after returning from Iraq; the diagnosis was not given the proper consideration during his court-martial by today's standards; the applicant was not given the proper treatment for PTSD after returning from Iraq and this led to him not being of sound mind to properly consider the legal issues he faced or understand the options available to him; his post-service conduct shows he is an exemplary citizen and father; his current discharge is preventing him from obtaining treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs and other treatment organizations; his current discharge is severely inhibiting his career options; while the applicant was in pretrial confinement, he was not given the proper medication to maintain a clear state of mind capable of processing the situation. The applicant served in Iraq from 10 March 2007 to 8 May 2008. Prior to deployment, the applicant was a model Soldier, being selected for special details; on the fast track to promotion; and earning various awards. While in Iraq, the applicant was tasked with casualty recovery and vehicle recovery, recovering disabled vehicles or those destroyed by IEDs. The applicant experienced rocket and mortar attacks on a regular basis. A couple of months prior to the end of the applicant's tour in Iraq, his mental health began to deteriorate and his wife informed the command. The command assured the applicant's wife, the applicant would be taken directly to impatient mental health as soon as they returned, but the command did no such thing. The applicant's mental health continued to deteriorate and he was unable to sleep or eat. After exhausting all other resources, the applicant turned to marijuana to help him sleep and eat. The applicant knows this was not the best option, but at the time he believed he had no other option. After the failed attempts to improve his condition, the applicant attempted suicide by running his car into a Jersey wall on the highway and woke up in the Bradley Center. The applicant was diagnosed with severe PTSD, severe depression, and anxiety and was prescribed medication. The applicant was pending court-martial and his command decided to remove him from the Bradley Center, a secure facility, and place him in pre-trial confinement. While in pre-trial confinement, the applicant was not given his medications at the times prescribed and his conditions worsened. During the applicant's court-martial proceedings, a psychologist provided testimony and two Soldiers and his Sergeant testified the applicant was a great Soldier, but he was trying to deal with his PTSD; he sought help from the command, but they failed to help. The military judge ruled the applicant served his time and he could return to duty. A couple of months later, the applicant was placed back into pretrial confinement for charges they had previously not charged him for and he went back to not receiving his proper medications. The applicant was sent to a sanity board, but the board did not mention anything regarding his PTSD, only he had a drug problem and determined he was fit to stand trial. The applicant accepted a plea deal to avoid prison. The applicant further details his life after he was discharged from the military. In a records review conducted on 11 February 2022, and by a 3 - 2 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-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 May 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 29 April 2009, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, for Specification 1: Did on 21 April 2009, without authority, go from his appointed place of duty, to wit: 1315 hours, Soldier Center. Specification 2: Did on 21 April 2009, without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: 0630 hours PT Formation. Specification 3: Did on 21 April 2009, without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: 0900 hours work call formation. Charge II: Violating Article 112a, UCMJ: The Specification: Did between 6 March 2009 and 6 April 2009, wrongfully use marijuana. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 29 April 2009 (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: NIF (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 14 May 2009 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 April 2006 / 4 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 3 years, 1 month, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (10 March 2007 - 8 May 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, VUA, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant provided two Electronic Copies of DD Form 2624, dated 29 May 2008 and 8 July 2008, reflecting the applicant tested positive for THC 27 (marijuana), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 21 May 2008 and THC 51 (marijuana), during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing, conducted on 30 June 2008. The applicant provided two Personnel Action forms, reflecting the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective date 16 July 2008; and, From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective date 25 July 2008. The applicant provided a Confinement Order, dated 4 December 2008, reflecting he was placed in pretrial confinement for violating Article 86, UCMJ, for on two occasions, failing to report and for being AWOL; Article 112a, UCMJ, for on two occasions, wrongfully using marijuana; and Article 134, for assault. Report of Result of Trial reflects the applicant was tried by Special Court-Martial on 5 January 2009. The applicant was found guilty of the following charges: Charge I: Violation of Article 86, UCMJ: Specification 1: On 25 August 2008, without authority failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. Plea: Guilty. Specification 2: From 16 July 2008 to 25 July 2008, without authority, absent himself from his unit. Plea: Guilty. Charge II: Violation of Article 112a, UCMJ: Specification 1: Between 21 April 2008 and 21 May 2008, wrongfully use marijuana. Plea: Guilty. Specification 2: Between 30 May 2008 and 30 June 2008, wrongfully use marijuana. Plea: Guilty. Sentence: Reduction to E-2; confinement for 30 days; and, restriction for 60 days. The applicant was credited with 32 days confinement credit towards the sentence to confinement. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 10 April 2009, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 21 (marijuana), during an Inspection Other (IO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 6 April 2009. Department of Defense Testing Results Portal printout, dated 14 April 2009, reflect the applicant tested positive for: THC 20 collected on 28 February 2007, during Inspection Unit (IU) testing THC 99 collected on 7 March 2007, during Inspection Random (IR) testing THC 27, collected on 21 May 2008, during IR testing THC 51, collected on 30 June 2008 during IU testing THC 21, collected on 6 April 2009, during Inspection Other (IO) testing Confinement Order, dated 27 April 2009, reflects the applicant received a medical examination for pre-trial confinement for violating Article 86, for on three occasions, failing to report and Article 112a, for wrongfully using marijuana. Memorandum for Record, dated 28 April 2009, reflects the applicant's immediate commander placed the applicant in pretrial confinement on 27 April 2009, due to probable cause to believe the applicant committed the following offenses: On four occasions, failing to report; being AWOL; on six occasions, using marijuana; and assault. The commander also indicated the applicant was a flight risk and the applicant only returned to military control due to being involved in a traffic accident and transported Martin Army Community Hospital and he was hospitalized from 5 November to 4 December 2008. The applicant's spouse was hospitalized because of the injuries she suffered from the applicant. The applicant was an ASAP failure, continued to indulge in drugs, and failed to respond to corrective measures. The applicant provided three Developmental Counseling Forms (The applicant's AMHRR contains one of the counseling forms), for various acts of misconduct. Charge Sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for 9 days, 16 July 2008 to 24 July 2008; CMA, 4 December 2008 to 5 January 2009 and 27 April 2009 to (not in file) / This period is not annotated on the DD Form 214, block 29. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided: The Bradley Center Hospital medical document reflecting the applicant was admitted on 6 November 2008, due to suicidal ideations. The applicant was initially taken to the Martin Army Hospital Emergency Room and then transferred to The Bradley Center for inpatient treatment. The applicant reported he went to Iraq war for approximately 14 months and returned in 2008. The applicant stated he had been having problems with alcohol and drugs, abusing cocaine, marijuana, alcohol, and pain pills with his drug of choice being opiates. The applicant reported he was admitted to a rehabilitation program at age 18 or 19 for abusing Ecstasy. The applicant reported he was told he beat up his wife; informed a friend he was suicidal; and, he tried to commit suicide by driving his car off the road; and then he was found in the parking lot. The applicant was diagnosed with: Major depression; Post-traumatic stress disorder; and, Polysubstance abuse. The applicant was prescribed medication and discharged on 3 December 2008. Special Court-Martial Record of Trial, reflecting the applicant's defense counsel requested a Sanity Board and the board found at the time of the alleged criminal conduct, the applicant did not have a severe mental disease or defect; DSM-IV clinical psychiatric diagnosis were the following: Major Depressive Disorder, moderate; Recurrent; Anxiety Disorder, not otherwise specified; Polysubstance Dependence; and, Partner Relational Problem; at the alleged criminal conduct, the applicant was able to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness or his conduct; and the applicant had sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings against him (trial by court-martial) and to conduct or cooperate intelligently in the defense. Initial Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 20 November 2012, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with: PTSD; Polysubstance Dependence, sustained full remission; and, Psychosocial and Environmental Problems. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with continuation sheet; self-authored statement; Hospital medical documents; Initial Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Disability Benefits Questionnaire; QTC Medical Services Invoice; Letter from Attorney; seven third-party statements; Special Court-Martial Record of Trial, with Sanity Board; other service documents, to include separation documents. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states his post-service conduct shows he is an exemplary citizen and father. The applicant continued to work on his mental health and expanded his knowledge and skillset, securing a career as an electrician; represented himself in court and won custody of his son; has had a clean driving record; and is held in high esteem by his coworkers and managers. 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-3 applies to a person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record 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 he suffered from PTSD, which affected his behavior and ultimately led to his discharge. The applicant provided in-service medical records reflecting he was hospitalized due to suicidal ideations and diagnosed with: Major depression; Post-traumatic stress disorder; and, Polysubstance abuse. The applicant provided VA documents reflecting he was diagnosed with: PTSD; Polysubstance Dependence, sustained full remission; and, Psychosocial and Environmental Problems. The applicant contends his diagnosis was not given the proper consideration during his court- martial by today's standards and improper treatment for his PTSD led to him not being of sound mind to properly consider the legal issues he faced or understand the options available to him. The applicant provided his Special Court-Martial Proceedings Record of Trial, reflecting he underwent a Sanity Board, which determined he had diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder, moderate; Recurrent; Anxiety Disorder, not otherwise specified; Polysubstance Dependence; and, Partner Relational Problem, but at the time of his alleged criminal conduct, he did not have a severe mental disease or defect; he was able to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness or his conduct; and, had sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings against him (trial by court-martial) and to conduct or cooperate intelligently in the defense. The applicant contends he did not receive the proper assistance he needed from the chain of command in regards to his mental issues. The evidence of record shows the applicant was receiving treatment for his mental health issues and enrolled in ASAP for his substance abuse. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, to include a combat tour. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill and to obtain medical benefits. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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 his post-service conduct shows he is an exemplary citizen and father. 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. 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 and found the applicant has a diagnosis of combat-related PTSD which could mitigate applicant's basis of separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant has a diagnosis of combat-related PTSD that existed during applicant's military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor opined that given the nexus between PTSD, avoidance, and self- medicating with substances, there is an association between applicant's PTSD and the misconduct that led to his separation, but does not fully mitigate that wrongful conduct. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board determined that the applicant's FTRs and wrongful use of marijuana outweighed the applicant's PTSD. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends he suffered from PTSD, which affected his behavior and ultimately led to his discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention, but the majority of the Board weighed the totality of applicant's record, including domestic violence charges (applicant admitted to getting intoxicated and assaulting his spouse) and voted against an upgrade. (2) The applicant contends his diagnosis was not given the proper consideration during his court-martial by today's standards and improper treatment for his PTSD led to him not being of sound mind to properly consider the legal issues he faced or understand the options available to him. The Board liberally considered this contention during its deliberation but concluded the weight of the evidence, including command supported medical inpatient care as well as treatment programs, does not support a conclusion that any of applicant's command actions were arbitrary or capricious regarding applicant's medical conditions. (3) The applicant contends he did not receive the proper assistance he needed from the chain of command in regards to his mental issues. The Board considered this contention during deliberation and determined the evidence of record supports the presumption of government regularity as noted by the applicant's command supporting treatment for mental health issues and enrollment in treatment programs. (4) The applicant contends good service, to include a combat tour. The Board considered applicant's quality of service during deliberations. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill and for him to obtain medical benefits. The Board determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. (6) 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. (7) The applicant contends his post-service conduct shows he is an exemplary citizen and father. The Board considered applicant's post-service accomplishments during deliberations. c. The majority of 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 combat-related PTSD did not outweigh the offenses of wrongful use of marijuana and FTRs which are the basis of separation. 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 not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 FTR - Failure to Report 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 AR20210003211 1