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, MG H. decided to separate applicant instead of choosing the approved medical board due to MG H. receiving a memo from LTC L. stating the applicant did not have anything in applicant’s medical history that would cause applicant to make a bad decision. The applicant respectfully disagrees, and believes applicant’s history of bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety, depression, adjustment disorder; significant family deaths were six months apart; and, being stationed away from applicant’s husband and children caused a break down and clouded applicant’s judgement. The applicant believes these factors mitigate the circumstances leading to applicant’s separation. The applicant is also seeking a recalculation of applicant’s active duty time. The applicant further details applicant’s contentions in a self-authored statement provided with the application. In a records review conducted on 1 March 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, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 26 August 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 June 2019 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between on or about 1 July 2017 and on or about 31 July 2017, the applicant presented a fraudulent Basic Allowance for Housing Secretarial Waiver extension in order to receive $1971 a month at the Tampa, Florida rate, which claim was fraudulent in the amount of $510 a month, and resulted in the fraudulent collection of $3570.000 (sic) of housing allowance; On or about 26 September 2018, with intent to deceive, the applicant submitted a DA Form 31 with a false leave address to CPT S.; On or about 27 September 2018, the applicant feigned illness in attempt to avoid the applicant’s duties; On or about 28 September 2018, with intent to deceive, the applicant sent a text message to COL D.E. implying the applicant was still in Augusta, Georgia when the applicant was instead in Pennsylvania; Between on or about 28 September 2018 and 29 September 2018, without authority, the applicant went from the appointed place of duty of 72 hour quarters in applicant’s Augusta, Georgia residence to Pennsylvania; and, On 30 September 2018, the applicant made multiple false statements to applicant’s leadership regarding applicant’s whereabouts over the previous 48 hours. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 14 June 2019 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 16 April 2019, the applicant submitted a Pre- trial offer and agreement wherein the applicant agreed to submit an unconditional waiver of applicant’s right to an administrative separation board. On 8 May 2019, applicant’s offer was accepted. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 July 2019 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 April 2014 / indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 32 / Bachelor’s Degree / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-8 / 25B50, IT Specialist / 19 years, 10 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 18 January 1999 – 29 April 2006 / NA IADT, 28 July 2000 – 11 January 2001 / UNC (concurrent service) AGR, 30 April 2006 – 22 September 2008 / HD AGR, 23 September 2008 – 7 April 2014 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii / None f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, ASR / The applicant’s AMHRR reflects award of the MSM-3, ARCOM-3, AAM-2, AGCM-4, ARCAM-2, AFRM, NCOPDR-3, OSR, GWOTSM however, the awards are not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: 2 October 2013 – 1 August 2014 / Among The Best 2 August 2014 – 3 June 2015 / Among The Best 4 June 2015 – 11 August 2016 / Highly Qualified 13 August 2016 – 12 August 2017 / Most Qualified 13 August 2017 – 12 August 2018 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Law Enforcement Report – Final, dated 19 June 2018, reflects the applicant received an approved BAH Secretarial Waiver for dependent education from the Department of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 office dated 23 September 2016 through 30 June 2017. SGM S. stated the applicant then provided a waiver extension to cover 1 July 2017 through 15 January 2018, the alleged unauthorized BAH for zip code 33621 (Tampa, FL). The waiver extension appeared to be fraudulent due to the inability of the Department of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 to recall, retrieve, or validate the extension; in addition, portions of documents appear to be forged. The applicant admitted to altering and submitted a fraudulent BAH Secretarial Waiver Extension to the Defense Military Pay Office. Estimated loss to the U.S. Government is $12,835.40. CPT S. D., Trial Counsel, opined probable cause existed to believe the applicant committed the offenses of Fraud and False Official Statement. GO Article 15, dated 20 August 2018, for presenting a Basic Allowance for Housing Secretarial Waiver Extension, dated 7 July 2017, to the Fort Gordon Finance Office, an office of the United States duly authorized to approve a claim against the United States in the amount of $1971 a month for Basic Allowance for Housing at the Tampa, Florida rate, which claim was fraudulent in the amount of approximately $510 a month, in that the applicant was not authorized to collect the Basic Allowance for Housing rate of Tampa, Florida, and was then known by the applicant to be fraudulent. This is in violation of Article 132, UCMJ (between 1 and 31 July 2017). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $2,549 pay per month for two months (suspended); extra duty for 45 days (24 days suspended); and, 45 days restriction, (suspended). Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, dated 31 May 2019, reflects the applicant was charged with: Charge I: The specification of violation of Article 115: In that the applicant did at or near Fort Gordon, Georgia on or about 27 September 2018, for the purpose of avoiding service as an enlisted person, feign illness. Charge II: Two specifications of violation of Article 107: Specification 1: the applicant did on or about 26 September 2018, with intent to deceive, sign an official document, to wit: DA Form 31, which document was false in that the leave address would be in Augusta, Georgia, between 24 September 2018 and 30 September 2018, and was then known by the applicant to be so false. Specification 2: the applicant, did on or about 28 September 2018, with intent to deceive, make to Colonel D.W.E, an official statement, to wit: “Sir I have slept most of the day. I am feeling ok. Eating bananas and apples. My his and is three hours away,” (sic) which statement was false in that it implied applicant was still in the Augusta, Georgia area, and was then known by the applicant to be so false. Charge III: The specification of violation of Article 86 the applicant, did at or near Fort Gordon, Georgia, between on or about 28 September 2018 and on or about 29 September 2018, without authority, go from applicant’s appointed place of duty, to wit: 72 Hour Quarters in applicant’s Augusta, Georgia residence. The sentenced adjudged: Reduction to the grade of E7. Memorandum, subject review of chart, dated 16 July 2019, reflects, chief behavioral health officer LTC S.L. determined the applicant does not have a diagnosis that causes/excuse delinquent behavior. It is especially concerning that the applicant seeks out Behavioral Health Services and other medical services when applicant is in some kind of trouble, non-medically related. The applicant’s behavioral health medical record was reviewed by Dr. R.G-F., MD over the past week. The applicant had several diagnoses recorded in applicant’s electric medical record over the years. During applicant’s military career the applicant sought out help for various reasons to include but not limited to receiving a PTSD evaluation, which was negative on 12 June 2018. The applicant displays signs of resiliency. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical Examination, dated 13 September 2016, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Bipolar disorder. The applicant provided a Memorandum for Medical Evaluation Board appellate review dated 4 March 2019, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with major depressive disorder with anxious distress, and adjustment disorder. Appellate decision document reflects the applicant’s conditions fail retention standards. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; behavioral health medical records; active duty medical records; self-authored statements detailing request for relief; ERB; DA Form 5016; medical board proceedings; DA photo; copies of military personnel records to include, awards, decorations, and, documented service records; case separation documents; personal photos (35 each); three news articles; 32 third party letters. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states continuing to be a positive influence in applicant’s community, applicant is active in applicant’s church, works with the homeless, serves within applicant’s sorority, and raises applicant’s children. 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 waivable and nonwaivable 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 waivable. 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 applicant contends applicant’s active duty time should be recalculated as it is incorrect. 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 having suffered from bipolar disorder, which affected applicant’s behavior leading to applicant’s separation. The AMHRR includes a Report of Medical Examination, dated 13 September 2016, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Bipolar disorder. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. Memorandum for Record, subject: review of chart, dated 16 July 2019, reflects the applicant did not have a diagnosis that causes/excuses delinquent behavior. It was especially concerning that she sought out behavioral health services and other medical services when she was in some kind of trouble, non-medically related; and the applicant received a PTSD evaluation which was negative on 12 June 2018. The applicant provided a Memorandum for Medical Evaluation Board appellate review, dated 4 March 2019, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with major depressive disorder with anxious distress, and adjustment disorder. Appellate decision document reflects the applicant’s conditions failed retention standards. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and contributed to the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends 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 applicant contends a medical evaluation board was under process at the time of the separation proceedings. 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 claims the offenses leading to the discharge were minor. The AMHRR indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends good service. The applicant contends volunteering in the local community in various ways, and continues to raise applicant’s children. 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 in the Army as well as after leaving the Army. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran's benefits 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. 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 DoD and VA medical records and found the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Depression, and Major Depression that 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 the applicant was diagnosed in-service with Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Depression, and Major Depression. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board’s Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, opined that although the applicant has BH diagnoses, they are not a mitigating factor in the applicant’s misconduct. Fraud, submitting a false DA 31 form, feigning illness to get out of duty, sending a text message to deceive others of applicant’s true location, when without authority, the applicant went from applicant’s appointed place of duty of 72 hour quarters, and making multiple false statements to applicant’s leadership regarding applicant’s whereabouts are not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Anxiety, or Adjustment Disorder and therefore do not mitigate applicant’s misconduct that was the basis for applicant’s separation. (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 the available evidence did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant’s medical conditions outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends applicant’s active duty time should be recalculated as it is incorrect. 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. (2) The applicant contends having suffered from bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and adjustment disorder, which affected applicant’s behavior leading to applicant’s separation. The Board liberally considered this contention, ultimately the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant’s medical conditions mitigated the basis for applicant’s separation. (3) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and contributed to the discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, however, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant’s family issues warranted a change tothe applicant’s discharge. (4) The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons, that a medical evaluation board was under process at the time of the separation proceedings. 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. The Board determined that based on this contention, the applicant’s discharge is both proper and equitable. (5) The applicant claims the offenses leading to the discharge were minor. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, ultimately the Board determined that this contention alone does not warrant an upgrade as the Fraud, submitting a false DA 31 form, feigning illness to get out of duty, sending a text message to deceive others of applicant’s true location, when without authority, the applicant went from applicant’s appointed place of duty of 72 hour quarters, and making multiple false statements to applicant’s leadership regarding applicant’s whereabouts are not mitigated offenses, the discharge is proper and equitable. (6) The applicant contends good service. The Board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By committing Fraud, submitting a false DA 31 form, feigning illness to get out of duty, sending a text message to deceive others of applicant’s true location, when without authority, the applicant went from applicant’s appointed place of duty of 72 hour quarters, and making multiple false statements to applicant’s leadership regarding applicant’s whereabouts, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (7) The applicant contends she now volunteers in her community in various ways, and continues to raise her children. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. (8) 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. (9) 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. 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 of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Depression, and Major Depression did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of committing Fraud, submitting a false DA 31 form, feigning illness to get out of duty, sending a text message to deceive others of applicant’s true location, when without authority, the applicant went from applicant’s appointed place of duty of 72 hour quarters, and making multiple false statements to applicant’s leadership regarding applicant’s whereabouts, and the discharge was both proper and equitable. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted 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 AR20210003302 1