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 conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant requests that his characterization of service is corrected from other than honorable to honorable and his narrative reason for separation and separation code are corrected from "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial" to reflect "Secretarial Authority." The applicant has been the victim of an error of fact regarding his culpability in the misconduct which ultimately ended his stellar Army career. The applicant was intentionally deceived and led astray by Soldiers he was mentored by and respected. Ultimately, he was used as a patsy as these Soldiers were allowed to continue their Army careers. Additionally, the applicant's history of mental health issues provided clear and convincing extenuating evidence which should have been evaluated prior to the decision to separate the applicant, but his chain of command failed to exercise due diligence and disregarded these diagnoses. The applicant served honorably and with distinction for nearly a decade but has been left with a shattered sense of honor and pride as a result of his other than honorable discharge from the Army. The applicant now seeks to correct his military records so he can restore his honor and reclaim his good name. In a records review conducted on 16 December 2021, 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-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 30 August 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 17 May 2018, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violating Article 92, UCMJ: Specification 1. The applicant did, between 1 April and or about 31 May 2017, violate a lawful general regulation: to wit: paragraph 3-3(c)(13), Army Regulation, dated 24 October 2017, Rapid Action Revision, dated 23 March 2009, by wrongfully accessing data which he was not authorized access. Specification 2: The applicant did, between on or about 1 April, and on or about 31 May 2017, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 3-3(c)(1), Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, Rapid Action Revision, dated 23 March 2009, by wrongfully failing to comply with the command's acceptable use policy. Specification 3: the applicant did, on divers occasions between on or about 6 January 2014 and on or about 5 March 2018, violate paragraph 7-4, Army Regulation 380-5, dated 29 September 2000, by wrongfully storing classified information. Charge II: Violating Article 108, UCMJ: The Specification: In that the applicant, did, on or about 20 February 2018, without proper authority, sell to Federal Bureau of Investigation Undercover Employee #4625 a FUR Surveillance RECON M18 Thermal Monocular of a value of about $11,025, military property of the United States. Charge III: Violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Specification 1: The applicant did, on or about 6 January 2014 and on or about 5 March 2018, steal a flash bang grenade, of a value of less than $500, the property of the United States Government. Specification 2: The applicant did, on or about 6 January 2014 and on or about 5 March 2018, steal a Panasonic Laptop #CF-52NKB102M, of a value of more than $500. the property of the United States Government. Specification 3: The applicant did, on or about 6 January 2014 and on or about 5 March 2018, steal a Joint Tactical Radio System, of a value of more than $500, the property of the United States Government. Specification 4. The applicant did, on or about 6 January 2014 and on or about 5 March 2018, steal a General Dynamics Phone, of a value of more than $500, the property of the United States Government. Specification 5: The applicant did, on or about 6 January 2014 and on or about 5 March 2018, steal a Panasonic Toughbook Computer #CF-U1AQBXZ2M, of a value of more than $500, the property of the United States Government. Specification 6: The applicant did, on or about 6 January 2014 and on or about 5 March 2018, steal a Panasonic Toughbook Computer #CF-19FH6AXAM, of a value of more than $500, the property of the United States Government. Specification 7: The applicant did, on or about 6 January 2014 and on or about 5 March 2018, steal a Panasonic Toughbook Computer #CF-19DJB31 BM, of a value of more than $500, the property of the United States Government. Specification 8: The applicant did, on or about 6 January 2014 and on or about 5 March 2018, steal Blackberry Classic Cell Phone, of a value of more than $500, the property of the United States Government. Specification 9: The applicant did, on or about 6 January 2014 and on or about 5 March 2018, steal a FUR Surveillance RECON M18 Thermal Monocular of a value of more than $500, the property of the United States Government. Charge IV: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134: Specification 1: The applicant did, on or about 21 April 2017, wrongfully endeavor to impede an investigation by telling Ms. W. that his case was dropped and needed to be closed out, or words to that effect, such conduct being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. Specification 2: The applicant did, on or about 10 April 2018, wrongfully endeavor to impede pending criminal proceedings by following Captain S home from work, such conduct being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 19 June 2018 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 August 2018 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 October 2013 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 18E1P, SF Communications Sergeant / 8 years, 6 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 13 October 2009 - 6 October 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 15 September 2014 - 4 October 2015 / Fully Capable 3 September 2015 - 4 March 2016 / Highly Qualified 5 March 2016 - 4 March 2017 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as describe in previous paragraph 3c. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 23 June 2017, for having an inappropriate relationship while married and for providing a false official statement to an Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 Investigating Officer. While at the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference in Tampa, Florida, he had an inappropriate relationship with Mrs. R., a married woman, and an employee of IDS International, a vendor which seeks to do business with the Department of Defense and Special Operations. After departing the conference, the applicant exchanged several inappropriate email messages with Mrs. R. Additionally, the applicant provided a statement to the investigating officer that his relationship with Mrs. R. was of a professional nature, which he knew to be false. The behavior in the matter demonstrates a complete lack of judgement and responsibility. This behavior could not and would not be tolerated and it forced consideration of his suitability for continued service. Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 13 October 2017, an Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 Investigation concluded that the applicant was disrespectful in demeanor and deportment when giving a briefing to a senior ranking military officer and that he sent information classified as FOUO from his GMAIL account. Specifically, on or about 7 September 2017, the applicant provided COL J. W., 2d Signal Brigade Commander, a communications briefing via an unclassified Cisco WEBX platform from his personal residence. The applicant did not notify or seek approval from the company or battalion commander, or Headquarters Group commander prior to conducting this briefing with an outside organization. The applicant's behavior reflected a complete lack of judgment and was inconsistent with the professionalism expected of a Non- commissioned Officer in 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne). This reprimand was administrative in nature and was not imposed as punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)" effective 11 April 2018; and, From "Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)" to "Present for Duty (PDY)," effective 16 August 2018. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 132 days: Confined by Civilian Authorities 5 March 2018 - 10 March 2018 / NIF CMA, 11 April 2018 - 16 August 2018 / Released from confinement j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 16 May 2018, 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. He was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, PTSD and ADHD. Report of Medical History, dated 22 August 2018, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: 15b/c- chronic headaches and migraines; suffered multiple TBIs; 12 lifetime and four with LOC per WRC Neurology AHLTA encounter March 2018- 2015 rollover MVC, multiple head trauma with door breaches in 2015 and 2016 while deployed, increased with tobacco cessation and start of Depakote and 17a-h-SM diagnosed with bipolar disorder March2018. Additional BH diagnoses include ADHD, PTSD, depression, anxiety, attempted suicide; two in-patient BH stays at EACH, current medications include Vyvanse, Depakote, risperidone, minipress and hydroxyzine. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 and attached Exhibits 1 through 11; Matters in Support of Alternate Disposition for the applicant memo dated 19 June 2018, 8 pages; DA Form 2823, 3 pages; DA Form 3822; Third party memo dated 18 June 2018; 6 pictures of applicant and family; third party letter from his wife; Memo from Attorney Work Product dated 11 April 2018; The applicant mental narrative; ERB. 6. Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted with 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. (6) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II.) (7) Paragraph 10b stipulates Soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years' active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel, voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and indicated an understanding an under other than honorable conditions discharge could be received, and the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans' benefits. The 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 635-5, Separation 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 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 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 his chain of command disregarded his behavioral health issues. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service Bipolar Disorder, PTSD and ADHD. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 16 May 2018, 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 contends he was used as a patsy and the other Soldiers in his command were allowed to continue with their career. 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 good service. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow him to received benefits and restore his good name. 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. 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 determined the applicant had in-service diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder, PTSD, and mTBI, as well as service connection by the VA for Neurosis. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed in-service with Bipolar Disorder, PTSD, and mTBI, as well as service connection by the VA for Neurosis. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration, the Board's Medical advisor opined that although the applicant was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, PTSD, mTBI, and Neurosis, these medical conditions do not actually mitigate applicant's misconduct of wrongfully accessing and storing classified information, larceny and attempted sale of government property, and impedance of an investigation and criminal proceedings that was the basis of applicant's separation. Specifically, the sequelae of these medical conditions do not have a nexus with the willful and premeditated misconduct that was the basis of applicant's separation. (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 non-medically mitigated offenses of stealing numerous pieces of property belonging to the United States Government, violating lawful general regulations by wrongfully accessing data which the applicant was not authorized access, wrongfully failing to comply with the command's acceptable use policy, wrongfully storing classified information, wrongfully tried to resale military property of the United States, and impeding a criminal investigations outweighed the applicant's BH diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder, PTSD, and mTBI for the reasons listed in (3) above. 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 and voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code. (2) The applicant contends his chain of command disregarded his behavioral health issues. After thorough review of the applicant's DOD and VA health records, the Board determined the applicant had in-service diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder, PTSD, and mTBI, as well as service connection by the VA for Neurosis; however, applicant's diagnosed BH conditions do not mitigate nor outweigh the basis of separation misconduct. (3) The applicant contends he was used as a patsy and the other Soldiers in his command were allowed to continue with their career. The Board concluded the evidence does not support applicant's contention. The Board determined that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that there were any arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. (4) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered applicant's quality of service but determined 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 offenses of Stealing numerous pieces of property belonging to the United States Government, violating lawful general regulations by wrongfully accessing data which the applicant was not authorized access, wrongfully failing to comply with the command's acceptable use policy, wrongfully storing classified information, wrongfully tried to resale military property of the United States, and impeding a criminal investigations, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow him to received benefits and restore his good name. 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. c. The Board determined 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 Bipolar Disorder, PTSD, and mTBI did not mitigate the offenses of wrongfully accessing and storing classified information, larceny and attempted sale of government property, and impedance of the resulting investigation and criminal proceedings. 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 AR20200003228 1