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 Former Service Member's (FSM's) spouse requests an upgrade to honorable. The FSM's spouse seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge should be changed to an honorable discharge with medical retirement for PTSD. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 28 September 2016 with a general (under honorable conditions). The applicant took his own life on 31 January 2018, 15 days after the birth of their child. The applicant suffered from severe PTSD from combat in Afghanistan with the 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment and this led to his problems with substance abuse and behavioral problems in the Army. The applicant deserves the honor of a retirement and their daughter deserves to know the applicant as a hero. The biggest pride besides their daughter was the applicant serving this country as an Army Ranger. There are many things the military and the VA should improve on in regards to helping active duty Servicemembers and veterans who suffer from combat connected PTSD. The applicant's story is a very powerful one because the applicant is one of the few who openly spoke about his struggles and this is clearly shown in his medical records provided. The applicant's tour in Afghanistan forever changed his life and ultimately led to his suicide. The applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge as a result of causing a major accident while under the influence of alcohol. The shame, guilt, and trauma the applicant felt after the deployment led him to alcohol abuse. The Army was well aware of this and the applicant was sent to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) on multiple occasions, but nothing helped with his internal battle. The FSM's spouse believes the applicant had given up on himself because the Army and the VA let him down in many ways. The FSM's spouse attached a binder with the applicant's medical records and timeline of his service, with highlights, and Post-It notes to assist in the review process. The FSM's spouse was the applicant's friend and her hero. Every single day, the FSM's spouse looks at her daughter and sees the applicant. Their daughter deserves to know her dad as a hero for his service and sacrifice to the nation. The applicant deserves a medical retirement from his combat connected PTSD and all the ghosts that haunted him. In a records review conducted on 11 February 2022, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 28 September 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 August 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 19 August 2016, the applicant drove his vehicle onto incoming traffic and had a head-on collision with another vehicle resulting in three victims, one of which was a three-month old child. The applicant was transported to the hospital where it was determined he was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a .408 blood alcohol content. At the scene of the accident, the applicant was also charged with possession of an open container, failing to maintain in his lane of traffic, and careless and reckless driving with wanton disregard of the rights and safety of others. On 20 April 2014, the applicant operated a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a .230 blood alcohol content. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 30 August 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 September 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 April 2012 / 4 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B1P, Infantryman / 4 years, 5 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (3 February 2013 - 17 May 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, AGCM, GWOTSM, ASR, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 20 April 2014, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Drunken Driving under Article 111, UCMJ (On Post). The investigation revealed the applicant was operating a vehicle, attempting to access post when a guard detected an odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from his person and the guard notified the military police. The military police administered a portable breath test with the results of .186. The applicant was administered a series of field sobriety tests which he failed. The applicant was apprehended and transported to the police station where he submitted a breath test with a result of .230 GMS. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 19 May 2014, reflects the applicant was driving while intoxicated. The applicant's blood alcohol content was .230 and as a result he was cited with driving under the influence. The applicant elected not to make a statement and volunteered for the Courtesy Patrol rehabilitative program. Serious Incident Report, dated 20 August 2016, reflects the applicant was arrested for Driving Under the Influence when he was involved in three-car traffic accident in Raeford, North Carolina. The applicant began to drift left into oncoming traffic, which caused the first vehicle traveling in the opposite direction of the applicant to swerve off the road and flip over. The driver sustained minor injuries and was released at the scene of the accident. The applicant's vehicle then struck a second vehicle head-on which had two females and a three-month old baby in it. The driver and the three-month old baby sustained minor injuries and were cleared at the scene, but the passenger was air evacuated to UNC Chapel Hill, in critical condition. The applicant's truck had an open container of alcohol. The applicant was transported to Cape Fear Valley Hospital where he registered a .48 BAC. The applicant was transferred to the custody of the Fort Bragg MPs and to the Fort Bragg PMO for processing. The applicant was administered a breathalyzer and registered a .25 BAC. Developmental Counseling Form for a DUI related accident. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The VA/DoD Joint Disability Evaluation Board Claim, dated 22 February 2016, reflects the medical conditions to be considered as the basis of fitness for duty determination were: right pectoralis tear s/p surgery (x2) with residuals; hearing loss; insomnia; sleep disturbances; back condition; shoulder condition, right; anxiety condition; stress condition; and, PTSD. Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 12 April 2016, reflect the following diagnosis: Status Post Right Pectoralis Tear Reconstruction with Residuals (failed retention standards); Chronic Right Shoulder Strain (failed retention standards); PTSD (met retention standards); Alcohol Use Disorder (met retention standards); and, Scar, right shoulder (met retention standards). The board recommended the case be referred to a physical evaluation board. The applicant agreed with the board's findings and recommendation. The applicant provided, the VA Disability Evaluation System Proposed Rating, dated 4 June 2016, reflecting a proposed DES service connected disabilities rating of 50 percent for PTSD. The applicant provided Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, dated 14 June 2016, the board found the applicant was physically unfit due to chronic Right (non-dominant) shoulder strain and status post right pectoralis tear reconstruction with residuals and recommended a rating of 20 percent and his disposition was to be separated with severance pay. The board found the applicant fit for PTSD; alcohol use disorder, moderate; scar-right shoulder because the conditions met retention standards. The applicant concurred and waived a formal hearing of his case. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 August 2016, reflects the applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant not homicidal, but thoughts/ urges to "strangle" others when frustrated, but no current intent to act on these thoughts. The applicant was diagnosed with: Alcohol Use Disorder; Other Problem Related to Employment; and Problem Related to Other Legal Circumstances. The applicant met medical retention standards from a Behavioral Health perspective. The applicant provided in-service medical record, which indicated active problems as: Alcohol dependence, adjustment Disorder with Anxiety; Anxiety Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed mood; Insomnia; Alcohol Abuse; and Alcohol Disorders. The applicant was enrolled to ADAPT, PH I and PH II on 6 May 2014 by command referral due to DUI on 20 April 2014. The applicant successfully completed ADAPT and PH I, but the applicant declined to attend AA meetings. The applicant provided Cape Fear Valley Health System Consultation, dated 4 January 2017, reflecting the applicant was admitted to the hospital following a suicide attempt by overdose. The applicant was assessed with PTSD, unspecified depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder. The applicant provided VA Progress Notes from 30 November 2017 to 29 January 2018, revealed the applicant disclosed the issues he was having mentally with his physician to include drinking a pint a day; feeling low with intermittent passive death wish; the applicant complained of extreme depression, mood swings, and alcohol problems; and, the physician noted the applicant had two suicide attempts, the last being in 2017. The applicant was rated 50 percent service-connected disability by the VA for PTSD. The applicant provided VA rating decision, dated 6 March 2018, reflecting the applicant was granted service connection disability for the cause of his death, granting eligibility to dependents' educational assistance. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; self-authored statement; DD Form 214; nine photographs; Death Certificate; Certificate of Marriage; Medical History Outline; separation documents; Initial Post-Traumatic Disorder (PTSD) Disability Benefits Questionnaire; MEB and PEB medical documents, in-service medical records; VA Disability Evaluation System Proposed Rating; North Carolina Uniform Citation; Text Messages; Cape Fear Valley Consultation; Uniform Traffic Citation, Summons, and Accusation (DUI); VA rating decision; VA Progress Notes, post-service. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 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 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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 FSM's spouse requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The FSM's spouse contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, 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 (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The FSM's spouse contends the applicant suffered from PTSD which affected his behavior and led to his discharge. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation which supports diagnoses of in-service PTSD and Alcohol Use Disorder. The applicant underwent a medical evaluation board on 12 April 2016 and informal physical evaluation board on 14 June 2016, which determined the applicant met retention standards for PTSD and Alcohol Use Disorder. The record reflects the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 25 August 2016, reflecting the applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was not homicidal, but thoughts/ urges to "strangle" others when frustrated, but no current intent to act on these thoughts. The applicant was diagnosed with: Alcohol Use Disorder; Other Problem Related to Employment; and Problem Related to Other Legal Circumstances. The applicant met medical retention standards from a Behavioral Health perspective. The applicant provided, the VA Disability Evaluation System Proposed Rating, dated 4 June 2016, reflecting a proposed DES service connected disabilities rating of 50 percent for PTSD; medical records, dated 20 March 2018, reflecting he was rated 50 percent disability for PTSD; and a VA rating decision, dated 6 March 2018, reflecting the applicant was granted service connected disability for the cause of his death, granting eligibility to Dependents' Educational Assistance. The FSM's spouse contends the applicant had good service, to include one combat tour. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The FSM's spouse contends the applicant did not receive any assistance with his mental condition from the command. The evidence of record reflects the applicant was enrolled in ASAP for treatment for his alcohol disorder and underwent a physical evaluation board for his medical issues to include PTSD, which found the applicant met retention standards for PTSD. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The FSM's spouse contends the applicant should be medically retired and the discharge should have been for medical reasons. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within this board's purview. The FSM's spouse may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The FSM's spouse contends the VA had granted a service-connected disability for PTSD. The provided medical documents reflect a VA rating to support her contention, which reflects the applicant was rated 50 percent service connected for PTSD. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former Servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the Army when determining a member's discharge. 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 applicant was diagnosed in service with Adjustment Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Other Depressive Episodes and service connected by the VA for 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, a voting member, found applicant having multiple in-service BH conditions and service connected by the VA for PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, arrived at this finding based upon clear evidence in the active duty medical record that applicant was self-medicating the Adjustment Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Other Depressive Episodes, and PTSD with alcohol, so there is an association between the applicant's mitigating BH conditions and the DUIs that led to the applicant's separation. Under Liberal Consideration guidance, the severity of the misconduct must be weighed against the mitigating BH conditions. In this case, applicant's simple DUI is medically mitigated, but the severity of the DUI in 2016 that resulted in injuries to three victims outweighs medical mitigation for this second DUI. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant's 2016 DUI with injures to three victims outweighed the applicant's Adjustment Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Other Depressive Episodes, and PTSD for the reasons listed in (3) above. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The FSM's spouse contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board concluded that applicant's discharge narrative reason was proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. (2) The FSM's spouse contends the applicant suffered from PTSD which affected his behavior which led to his discharge. After review of all available information, the Board found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with Adjustment Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Other Depressive Episodes, and was service connected by the VA for PTSD. Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant's 2016 DUI with injures to three victims outweighed the applicant's Adjustment Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Other Depressive Episodes, and PTSD. (3) The FSM's spouse contends the applicant had good service, to include one combat tour. The Board considered applicant's quality of service and 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 operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol that injured three victims, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (4) The FSM's spouse contends the applicant did not receive any assistance with his mental condition from the command. The Board considered this contention and concluded that the evidence of record reflects the applicant's command's support for applicant's enrollment in ASAP for treatment for his alcohol disorder and underwent a physical evaluation board for his medical issues to include PTSD, which found the applicant met retention standards for PTSD. The Board concluded that the applicant's AMHRR file does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. (5) The FSM's spouse contends the applicant should be medically retired. The Board determined that the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The ADRB may not change a discharge for non-disability reasons to a disability separation or retirement. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. (6) The FSM's spouse contends the VA had granted a service-connected disability for PTSD. While the ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions, the applicant's VA granted PTSD rating was considered by the Board during deliberations. However, there is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant's time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member's discharge characterization. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contentions 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 Adjustment Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Other Depressive Episodes, and PTSD did not mitigate the 2016 DUI that caused injures to three victims. 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 DUI- Driving Under the Influence ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 FSM - Former Servicemember 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 AR20210003228 1