1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 5 September 2020 b. Date Received: 18 September 2020 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: (1) The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade of their character of service, separation code, re-entry code, and narrative reason for separation. (2) The applicant, through counsel, seeks reconsideration of their request for relief stating their discharge was inequitable because their disciplinary infraction was caused by behavioral changes and emotional impacts from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). They were diagnosed in March 2011 with adjustment disorder related to PTSD and ultimately diagnosed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). An upgrade of their discharge would allow access to education and training benefits as well as additional mental health services. The Army Discharge Review Board should consider the discharge with liberal consideration given the mitigating medical issues that impacted the applicant's post deployment behavior and mood. (3) The applicant's argument consists of – (a) The applicant's request warrants an upgrade under the "Liberal Consideration" standard mandated by the Department of Defense. (b) They have been diagnosed with PTSD which excuses or mitigates the discharge, and they were suffering from PTSD during military service. (c) Their PTSD actually excuses or mitigates the discharge. Their PTSD existed at the time of the incident and his discharge, and their PTSD must therefore "be liberally considered as excusing or mitigating the discharge." (d) Their PTSD outweighs the discharge. Their disciplinary issue was a single isolated incident. (e) Their request for a discharge upgrade should be granted on equity grounds based on the totality of their life and circumstances. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 1 December 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct, (Serious Offense) / Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 15 July 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 May 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: stole private property (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 31 March 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 June 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 June 2008 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / HS Graduate / 130 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 1 month, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (15 October 2009 – 1 August 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) An Enlisted Record Brief reflects the applicant deployed to Iraq from 15 October 2009 through 1 August 2010. (2) A DA Form 3975 (Military Police Report), dated 22 February 2011, reflects the applicant as the named subject with the offense of Larceny, Article 121 (Army & Air Force Exchange (AAFES) Property (On Post)). (3) A DA Form 2833 (Sworn Statement), dated 23 February 2011, the applicant states when questioned "When did you steal form the PX [Post Exchange]," in which he responds, "starting in December 2010 through 21 February 2011." (4) A DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice), dated 30 March 2011, reflects the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for, on or about 21 February 2011, stole AAFES property, of a value less than $500.00. Punishment consisted of a reduction to the rank/grade of private/E-1, forfeiture of $733.00 for 2 months, extra duty and restriction for 45 days, and an oral reprimand. (5) A Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation dated 29 April 2011, reflects the applicant's disposition from a behavioral health standpoint is fit for duty, including deployment. The applicant can understand and participated in administrative proceedings, can appreciate the difference between right and wrong and meets medical retention requirements (i.e., does not qualify for a Medical Evaluation Board). (a) The diagnosis section reflects an Axis I (Psychiatric Condition) diagnosis of Occupational Problem and an Axis II (Personality & Intelligence Disorders) diagnosis of Personality Disorder. (b) In the Additional Comments the Behavioral Health Provider checks the following blocks – * service member is psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command * service member has a condition that is likely to impair their judgment or reliability as related to access to classified materials * it is the professional opinion of the undersigned that this service member will not responds to command efforts at rehabilitation or to any behavioral health treatment methods currently available to the military * the service member has been screened for PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury, these conditions are either not present or, if present, do not meet the criterial for a Medical Evaluation Board (6) A DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History) dated 15 April 2011, the applicant marked "Yes" to multiple entries for "Have you ever had, or do you now have" to a listing of conditions. In the section completed by the providing physician, dated 9 May 2011, writes the applicant is being seen by Behavioral Health. (9) A DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 9 May 2011, reflects the applicant is qualified for service. In item 77 (Summary of Defects and Diagnoses) the examining physician indicated behavioral health problems – anxiety and depression. (10) A memorandum, subject: Notification Procedures – Separation under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, dated 24 May 2011, the applicant’s company commander notified the applicant of their intent to separate them under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense with a recommended characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions) for, stealing private property. On the same day the applicant acknowledged the basis for the separation and of the rights available to them. (11) On 31 May 2011, the applicant completed their election of rights, signing they had been advised of their right to counsel and elected to decline the opportunity to consult with counsel. They elected to submit statements on their behalf. (12) In the applicant's memorandum, subject: Rebuttal Matters – Proposed Separation, dated 8 June 2011, they state – (a) They request either an upgrade of their discharge to honorable; disapprove their discharge so they would be allowed to go through a medical discharge; or defer their discharge to allow for their medical and mental treatment. They are truly sorry and angry at themselves for doing something so stupid, what they did was wrong, and they accept full responsibility for their actions. The only thing is they are not sure why they did it. (b) During their recent admission in the mental ward at the Soldier's and Sailor's Hospital they had the opportunity to examine their situation. They have always walked the line and done the right thing, yet since they have been back from their deployment, they have been picked up by the military police three times and sent to the hospital for mental evaluations twice and admitted to the mental ward once. Upon reflection, they have come to the conclusion that the last 3 years has brought them to where they are today. (c) They wrote out a list of things that has caused them significant amount of stress and hardship. (Note the applicant continues to address a list of 20 events). (d) They think it is pretty clear that they have underlying mental and emotional issues and believe they should be allowed time for treatment. Being chaptered out would not be in their best interest or of the best interest of the Army. They have already received nonjudicial punishment and they do not think this is something that warrants following him the rest of their life. (13) In the applicant's spouse's letter to the separation authority, undated, they state their concern of how this separation will affect their family's future. They attest to their spouse's character, how the Army has affected their lives, and how the applicant's deployment has affected their spouse. (14) In a memorandum, subject: Separation under the Provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, 30 June 2011, the separation authority directed the applicant will be separated from the Army prior to the expiration of current term of service and the applicant's service will be characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions). (15) On 15 July 2011, the applicant was discharged accordingly, the DD Form 214 provides the applicant completed 3 years, 1 month, and 12 days of net active service this period. Item 18 (Remarks) reflects the applicant has not completed their first full term of service of 5 years. (16) On 18 May 2012, the Army Discharge Review Board, after carefully examining the applicant's record of service, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. (a) The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of their service was not consistent with the Army's standard for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous, or the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. (b) While the applicant may believe their stress at home and work was the underlying cause of their misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that they sought relief from stress through their chain of command or the numerous Army Community Services. (c) The applicant contends their command did not follow proper procedures in discharging them and the applicant should have been medically discharged. However, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition like a personality or adjustment disorder solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. (d) The Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 29 April 2011, diagnosed the applicant with Occupational Problems, Personality Disorder, and hip pain; however, the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by their command. There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has submitted no probative medical evidence that they had a medical problem which rendered them disqualified for further military service and that they were not able to perform their duties, with either medical limitation or medication. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: * excerpts of their service medical records reflecting their diagnosis and treatment for adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood * VA Rating Decisions and Letter reflecting the applicant's diagnosis of PTSD (2) AMHRR Listed: MSE/BHE as described in previous paragraph 4h(5). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge) * Counsel's Memorandum in Support of Application for Correction of Military Record with six exhibits * Exhibit 1 – excerpts of the applicant's service record reflecting their enlistment and case files for approved separation * Exhibit 2 – excerpts of the applicant's medical service record reflecting their diagnosis and treatment for adjustment disorder with Depressed Mood, the VA Rating Decision granting the applicant a 10-percent service-connection for PTSD, and a Traumatic Brain Injury consult reflecting the applicant's diagnostic impressions of Bipolar I Disorder, PTSD, and Cognitive Disorder * Exhibit 3 – VA Rating Decisions and Letters, reflecting the applicant's service- connected disabilities to include PTSD with Bipolar Disorder increased to 70-percent * Exhibit 4 – Ex-Spouse Support Letter, attesting to the applicant's character and how the applicant's deployment affected them and the applicant's mental health * Exhibit 5 – Character Reference Letter, from the applicant's church pastor, attesting to the applicant's character and involvement in their church activities * Exhibit 6 – Applicant's Personal Statement, attesting to their adjustment after their deployment, their marital issues, and their improvements since being discharged from the service 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1553, (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, Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 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 (DoD) 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; Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1553; and DoD Directive 1332.41 and DoD Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), dated 6 July 2005, set policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) A Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct) established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. 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. Paragraph 14-12b (Pattern of Misconduct), stated, a pattern of misconduct consisting of one of the following – discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities, or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, the civil law, and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. (6) Chapter 15 (Secretarial Plenary Authority), currently in effect, 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 “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 DoD Instructions 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: (1) RE-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. (2) 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. (3) 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. g. Title 38, U.S. Code, Sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge, or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by the agency. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): a. The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by DoD Instruction 1332.28. b. The applicant's AMHRR provides the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for stealing property of AAFES. A properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature which provides the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service rather than a under other than honorable conditions which is normally considered appropriate. The applicant completed 3 years, 1 month, and 12 days of net active service and has not completed their first full term of service of 5 years. c. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separation members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. 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. d. The AMHRR does not provide documentation of a diagnosis of a PTSD diagnosis during the applicant's term of service. e. Published DoD guidance indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 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, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment DO with depressed mood; Adjustment DO with depressed mood and anxiety; PTSD (70%SC). (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found Adjustment DO with depressed mood; Adjustment DO with depressed mood and anxiety were diagnosed on active duty. VA service connection for PTSD establishes condition existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there are no mitigating BH conditions. While the applicant is 70% SC for PTSD and has been diagnosed with Adjustment DO, neither of these conditions mitigates the offense of committing larceny given that neither condition affects one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – larceny offense – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends their discharge was inequitable because their disciplinary infraction was caused by behavioral changes and emotional impacts from PTSD. The Board considered this contention and found neither PTSD or MDD mitigates the offense of committing larceny given that neither condition affects one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. Therefore, the discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends an upgrade of their discharge would allow access to education and training benefits as well as additional mental health services. The Board considered this contention and 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. (3) The applicant contends their request for a discharge upgrade should be granted on equity grounds based on the totality of their life and circumstances. The Board considered the entirety of the applicant’s service and records and found it does not outweigh the larceny misconduct. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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 Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official that the applicant's Adjustment DO and PTSD does not mitigate the applicant's larceny offense. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the reason for the applicant's separation and the character of service the applicant received upon separation were 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, as 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 AR20210005806 1