1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable. The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the Chapter 10 request does not comply with AR 635-200 and the unit failed to consider a TBI in mitigation and the post-service record shows the applicant served honorably. The applicant contends after having served faithfully, honorably, and with distinction on Active (AD) in the United States Army for almost 6 years, 11 months, and 29 days, the unit denied due process during the administrative separation process under AR 635- 200, Chapter 10. The applicant's Chapter 10 process did not comply with AR 635-200 and the unit failed to examine whether the Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) constituted mitigation evidence. The applicant believes the discharge was so inconsistent with the unusual practice and custom in similar cases in the USA, it constituted fundamental injustice, travesty of fairness, and clear denial of due process. Since this discharge, the applicant has been a business owner and completed an Associate of Arts Degree. Counsel further requests a change to narrative reason for discharge from "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial" to "other", a change of reentry eligibility (RE) code to 1 and a change of rank from "PV1" to "SGT," to correct all military personnel records and to grant any other relief. Counsel, further details the contentions in an allied legal brief provided with the application. The applicant contends there are three arbitrary and capricious actions which should be considered in mitigation and extenuation: 1) the applicant was separated in violation of Department of Defense Instruction 1332.14, Enlisted Separations, because he was not allowed to complete his phase 2 physical; 2) abusive action of his unit by leaving the investigation open for over five years after his separation; and, 3) abusive action of his unit by not considering the lesser included charges. In a records review conducted on 17 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 7 July 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 7 May 2015, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violating Article 120, UCMJ, for: Specification 1: The applicant did on or about 17 January 2015, commit sexual contact upon Ms. B to wit: touching her waist with his hand, by causing bodily harm to her. Specification 2: The applicant did on or about 17 January 2015 commit sexual contact upon Ms. B. to wit: touching her chest with his hand, by causing bodily harm to her. Charge II: Violating Article 128, UCMJ, Article 128, Specification: The applicant did on or about 17 January 2015, unlawfully grab the necklace of Ms. B with his hand. Charge III: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134, Specification: The applicant did on or about 17 January 2015, wrongfully solicit Ms. B, to engage in prostitution, by offering her 50 dollars to engage in sexual intercourse 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: 1 June 2015 (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: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 June 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 July 2012 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 31B14, Military Police / 6 years, 11 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 9 July 2008 - 25 July 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (1 August 2009 - 21 May 2010); Afghanistan (19 May 2012 - 15 February 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM-2, AAM, AGCM-2, ICM-CS, NDSM, GWOTSM, MOVSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 1 October 2012 - 30 September 2013 / Fully Capable 1 October 2013 - 30 September 2014 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Law enforcement Report, dated 9 April 2015, reflects the investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Abusive Sexual Contact when he touched Mrs. B. in a sexual manner without her consent. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 September 2013, 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. The applicant was diagnosed with: TBI. The applicant provided his University of Mississippi Psychological Evaluation Report conducted between 20 July and 3 August 2021. The report recommended the applicant seek further assessment for Traumatic Brain Injury. Currently, Mild Neurocognitive Impairment due to Traumatic Brain Injury is suggested as a provisional diagnosis, as administration of gold- standard diagnostic measures are needed. The applicant reported he finds himself frequently angry or irritable, and then becomes more self-destructive, and increased his alcohol usage as a means of coping. He continuously feels on guard and becomes easily startled. While he also meets the criteria for Panic Disorder, Agoraphobia, and Alcohol Use Disorder he noted that all of the aforementioned disorders occurred after his traumatic event. Therefore, the applicant's symptoms are best explained by and consistent with diagnostic criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The applicant also meets the criteria for Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with allied legal brief and all listed exhibits dated 8 July 2019 and legal brief with exhibits dated 30 September 2021. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has been a business owner and completed an Associate of Arts Degree. He is currently attending, the University of Mississippi where he is currently a junior/senior based on credit hours. He is a religion and philosophy major, and currently has a 2.5 GPA. 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 10-4b, states consideration should be given to the Soldier's potential for rehabilitation, and his/her entire record should be reviewed before taking action per this chapter. (7) Paragraph 10-6, states a medical examination is not required but may be requested by the Soldier under AR 40-501, chapter 8. (8) 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.) (9) 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-3 Applies to: 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 that 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 the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial," and the separation code is "KFS. Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 10, is "KFS." The applicant contends, the Chapter 10 request does not comply with AR 635-200 and the unit failed to consider a TBI in mitigation. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in-service TBI. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 24 September 2013, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of "3." There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of "3" indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army's needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends his rank should change from PV1 to SGT. The applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within this board's purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The applicant contends his discharge was so inconsistent with the unusual practice and custom in similar cases in the USA that it constituted fundamental injustice, travesty of fairness, and clear denial of due process. Applicable regulations state each case must be decided on an individual basis, considering the unique facts and circumstances of the particular case. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends he was separated in violation of Department of Defense Instruction 1332.14, Enlisted Separations, because he was not allowed to complete his phase 2 physical. The Department of Defense disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation while undergoing a medical board. Appropriate regulations stipulate separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board and is subsequently processed for an involuntary administrative separation or referred to a court-martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended. The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical process is stopped, and the board report is filed in the member's medical record. The applicant contends the unit left his investigation open for five years after his separation. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the unit did not consider the lesser included charges. The applicant stated in his request for discharge in lieu of trail by Court Martial. He has been advised of the implications that are attached to it. By submitting this request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood the elements of the offense(s) charged and am guilty of the charge(s) against him or of (a) lesser included offense(s) therein contained which also authorize(s) the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. The applicant hereby stated under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation, for he has no desire to perform further military service. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends he has been a business owner and his Associate Degree. 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 before 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? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records and found the applicant was diagnosed in service with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Adjustment Disorder which could mitigate applicant's basis of separation. Additionally, post service, civilian diagnoses include PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder and applicant also self-asserts having a TBI that could also mitigate applicant's basis of separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found in-service Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Adjustment Disorder diagnoses that existed during applicant's military service. However, the Board's Medical Advisor, even after applying liberal consideration concluded that the weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that applicant did not have PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, or TBI during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration of all the evidence and determined the applicant's Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Adjustment Disorder do not have any association between either of these conditions and abusive sexual contact or soliciting prostitution, nor do either conditions mitigate those wrongful actions as the basis for applicant's separation. Further, even if proven that applicant did have PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, or TBI during military service, none of these conditions have any association with, let alone mitigation of abusive sexual contact or soliciting prostitution. (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, that none of the applicant's medical conditions are associated with abusive sexual contact or soliciting prostitution, nor could any combination of those conditions outweigh the wrongful conduct that was the basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason and SPD code for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable due to the seriousness of the sexual contact and solicitation, and none of applicant's BH conditions outweighed applicant's basis of separation misconduct. (2) The applicant contends, the Chapter 10 request does not comply with AR 635-200 and the unit failed to consider a TBI in mitigation. The Board liberally considered this contention during its deliberation but concluded the weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that any of applicant's command actions were arbitrary or capricious because of any applicant TBI, nor that any applicant TBI could be associated with, let alone outweigh the misconduct that led to the applicant's discharge. (3) The applicant contends he was separated in violation of Department of Defense Instruction 1332.14, Enlisted Separations, because the applicant was not allowed to complete the phase II physical. The Board considered this contention during its deliberation but concluded the weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that any of applicant's command actions were arbitrary or capricious as supported by the fact that the applicant consulted with legal counsel during applicant's separation process. (4) The applicant contends the unit left the investigation open for five years after the separation. The Board considered this contention during its deliberation but concluded the weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that any of applicant's command actions were arbitrary or capricious as supported by the fact that the applicant consulted with legal counsel during the applicant's separation process. (5) The applicant contends the unit did not consider the lesser included charges. The Board considered this contention during its deliberation but concluded the weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that any of applicant's command actions were arbitrary or capricious, as supported by the fact that the applicant consulted with legal counsel during the applicant's separation process. (6) The applicant contends the rank should change from PV1 to SGT. The Board determined that the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. 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. (7) The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. 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 the misconduct of wrongfully soliciting sex to engage in prostitution and diverse sexual assault offenses, causing bodily harm, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (8) The applicant contends the discharge was so inconsistent with the unusual practice and custom in similar cases in the USA, it constituted fundamental injustice, travesty of fairness, and clear denial of due process. The Board considered this contention during its deliberation but concluded the weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that the applicant's discharge was both proper and equitable. (9) The applicant contends being a business owner and obtained an Associate Degree. The Board considered this contention during its deliberation but concluded this post service accomplishment was not enough to warrant a change to the applicant's discharge due to the seriousness of the sexual contact and solicitation which is applicant's basis of separation. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, the applicant's BH diagnoses of Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Adjustment Disorder did not outweigh applicant's offenses of unwanted sexual contact and solicitation that were the basis for separation, nor was there sufficient evidence to conclude that there was any impropriety or inequity throughout the separation process. 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 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 AR20210003291 1