1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 November 2020 b. Date Received: 24 November 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant's Requests and Issues: 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 through a guardian, seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant had untreated mental health conditions while in the service. The applicant received a number of distinguished awards and decorations during the applicant's military career. While military notes indicate the applicant was counseled for "various minor disciplinary infractions," this hardly justifies an "other than honorable" discharge. Additionally, Developmental Counseling Forms indicate only minor infractions. In another example, a counselor wrote that Soldiers should be given the directions to their appointed place of duty if they do not know where the location is. The counselor further noted that "Soldier complied with plan of action and performed outstanding." (See Developmental Counseling Form, 11 August 2005). When violations were indicated, the applicant always committed to a plan of action to resolve the identified issues. These are noted throughout the applicant's military record, such as failure to be at place of duty, when the applicant had a tooth ache, the applicant went to the dental clinic. (See Evidence and Developmental Counseling Form, 11 August 2005) This also was inappropriately considered a reprimandable offense. The applicant's disciplinary problems began while stationed at Fort Sill, OK. It is believed that something there triggered the applicant's ongoing underlining mental health issues. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 11 October 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, in service Adjustment Disorder and pre-enlistment diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder and Schizoaffective Disorder mitigated the applicant's misconduct - wrongfully used cocaine, d-amphetamine, amphetamine, multiple failures to report, and dereliction of duty. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 24 May 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 March 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant wrongfully used cocaine, d-amphetamine, and amphetamine, multiple failures to report, and dereliction of duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 March 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 3 March 2006, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 6 April 2006, the applicant's conditional waiver was denied. On 9 May2006, the applicant voluntarily and unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 May 2006 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 May 2006 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / High School Graduate / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 94P Multiple Launch Rocket System Repairer / 3 years, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWTSM, KDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, 20 September 2005, for wrongful use of D-amphetamine and Amphetamine between on or about 20 and 23 May 2005. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $617.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. FG Article 15, 2 November 2005, for 4 counts of failure to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 3 and 11 October 2005, and 16 and 20 September 2005, and wrongful use of BZE (cocaine) between on or about 16 and 19 September 2005. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $617.00 pay per month for 2 months and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. FG Article 15, 11 January 2006, for dereliction of duty and going from the appointed place of duty on or about 10 November 2005. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $617.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended); and extra duty for 30 days. Thirteen Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct including, positive urinalysis, failure to report on numerous occasions, and failure to be in correct uniform. The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief, 7 February 2006, shows the applicant was flagged for involuntary separation/field initiated (BA), effective 11 October 2005; was ineligible for pending security clearance determination (9D). The Assignment Eligibility Availability (AEA) code shows AEA code "L" which has no assignment restrictions. The applicant was reduced from E-4 to E-1 effective 20 September 2005. FLAGS / AEA codes: BA / L RE/Prohibition code: 9D i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation, 28 June 2007, showing a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, most recent episode manic with psychotic features, alcohol dependence, cannabis dependence, rule out substance induced mood/psychotic disorder; and vocational problems. Initial Psychiatric Evaluation, 25 July 2007, showing a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, most recent episode manic; polydrug abuse, in remission; history attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; and Problems with social support, poor social support, not working; Global Assessment of Functioning - 50, current. Psychiatrist Report, 10 October 2020, showing the applicant was under psychiatric care with this psychiatrist since July 2018. The applicant's behavior, later in the service was most likely a result of underlying untreated behavioral health diagnosis. (1) AMHRR Listed: Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, 3 October 2005, shows the applicant received command directed mental health evaluation. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative proceedings. The applicant met the mental health retention requirements of chapter 3, AR 40-501. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, rule out Poly substance abuse. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Legal Guardian Letter with all listed exhibits 1 through 11. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board) sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Counseling. When a Soldier's conduct or performance becomes unacceptable, the commander will ensure that a responsible official formally notifies the Soldier of their deficiencies. At least one formal counseling session is required before separation proceedings may be initiated for a chapter 14. In addition, there must be evidence that the Soldier's deficiencies continued after the initial formal counseling. (2) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (3) 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. (4) 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. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) 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. (8) 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, SPD Codes, provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army, and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: (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. 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 AMHRR, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows the applicant served 3 years and 11 days during which the applicant served 1 year and 23 days in Korea. The applicant was assigned to Fort Sill, OK in April 2005. The applicant received 13 counseling's and 3 field grade report of proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ between August 2005 and January 2006 for various types of misconduct which is stated under paragraph 4h above. On 24 May 2006, the applicant was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The record confirms the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant's service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant through a guardian contends, in effect, the applicant had untreated mental health conditions, schizoaffective disorder and bipolar type, that was triggered while assigned to Fort Sill, OK. The applicant's guardian provided a Psychiatrist Report, 10 October 2020, showing the applicant's behavior, later in the service was most likely a result of underlying untreated behavioral health diagnosis. Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation, 28 June 2007, showing a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, most recent episode manic with psychotic features, alcohol dependence, cannabis dependence, rule out substance induced mood/psychotic disorder; and vocational problems. Initial Psychiatric Evaluation, 25 July 2007, showing a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, most recent episode manic; polydrug abuse, in remission; history attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder; and Problems with social support, poor social support, not working; Global Assessment of Functioning - 50, current. The applicant's AMHRR has a Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, 3 October 2005, that shows the applicant received command directed mental health evaluation. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, rule out Poly substance abuse. The applicant through a guardian contends, in effect, the applicant was not mentally capable of understanding the charges and documents that the applicant signed, one example is on Developmental Counseling Form, 15 November 2005, where it states, "My initials signify my understanding of this fact," instead of the applicant's initials, the applicant drew a smiley face. Developmental Counseling Forms, 5, 12 and 17 October 2005 and 3 January 2006 for the same statement, the applicant placed initials. Developmental Counseling Form, 18 October 2005, for the same statement, the applicant also placed a smiley face. The applicant through a guardian contends, in effect, the applicant received a number of distinguished awards and decorations during his military career. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant through a guardian contends, in effect, the applicant's "various minor disciplinary infractions," does not justify an "other than honorable" discharge. Per AR 635-200, a discharge under other than honorable conditions are normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under chapter 14. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. The applicant through a guardian, contends, in effect, a counselor wrote that Soldiers should be given the directions to their appointed place of duty if they do not know where the location is. The counselor further noted that "Soldier complied with plan of action and performed outstanding." Developmental Counseling Form, 11 August 2005, shows the applicant checked the agree box and wrote in the words that the guardian states were written by the counselor. The counselor commended the applicant for completed the plan of action. The applicant through a guardian contends, in effect, the applicant always committed to a plan of action to resolve the identified issues, such as failure to be at place of duty, when the applicant had a tooth ache, the applicant went to the dental clinic which was inappropriately considered a reprimandable offense. Developmental Counseling Form, 11 August 2005, shows instead of being present for a 0900 hour formation, the applicant went to the dental clinic for a tooth ache without informing leadership first. According to the counselor, it is not a standard to miss formations and not notify the squad leader or someone in the section of a current status when the squad leader cannot be contacted. Field Manual 6-22 (Developing Leaders), paragraph 1-11, states written counseling provides a reference for future professional development. Setting expectations in a unit about how and why leaders hold subordinates accountable is itself a means of developing leaders. It ensures shared understanding on effective leader requirements and unit standards, ultimately growing better leaders and maintaining positive command climates. The applicant through a guardian contends, in effect, there is no evidence including no drug test, no blood test, or arrest record for "wrongful use" of BZE (cocaine), D-Amphetamine or Amphetamine. The applicant's AMHRR contains two FG Article 15 and the commander's report that shows the applicant wrongfully used BZE (cocaine), D-Amphetamine and Amphetamine. The AMHRR is void of an electronic copy of DD Form 2624 (Drug Test Results). 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: Adjustment Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed in-service with Adjustment Disorder. However, he held pre-enlistment diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder with comment on prodromal psychotic symptoms, which was later diagnosed, which would have existed in-service and likely aggravated. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the diagnoses would have existed in-service and likely aggravated heightening the symptoms and related impairment which includes poor decision making, rash behaviors, substance use, difficulty with authority, disregard for authority or rules, etc. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the applicant's length of service, in service Adjustment Disorder and pre-enlistment diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder and Schizoaffective Disorder mitigated the applicant's misconduct - wrongfully used of cocaine, d-amphetamine, amphetamine, multiple failures to report, and dereliction of duty basis of separation for the aforementioned reason. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The Board considered this contention during proceedings and voted to grant an upgrade based on the applicant's length of service, in service Adjustment Disorder and pre-enlistment diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder and Schizoaffective Disorder mitigated the applicant's misconduct - wrongfully used of cocaine, d-amphetamine, amphetamine, multiple failures to report, and dereliction of duty basis of separation for the aforementioned reason. Thus, and upgrade of the characterization of service and narrative reason for separation code is warranted. The RE code will not change, due to the applicant's mitigating condition is also service limiting. (2) The applicant through a guardian contends, in effect, the applicant had untreated mental health conditions, schizoaffective disorder and bipolar type, that was triggered while assigned to Fort Sill, OK. The Board considered this contention and the applicant's assertion of inequity, along with the totality of the applicant's military records and found no evidence of the command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Also, the applicant's AMHRR has a Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation that shows the applicant received command directed mental health evaluation. (3) The applicant through a guardian contends, in effect, the applicant was not mentally capable of understanding the charges and documents that the applicant signed, one example is on Developmental Counseling Form, 15 November 2005, where it states, "My initials signify my understanding of this fact," instead of the applicant's initials, the applicant drew a smiley face. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the information outlined above in paragraph 9a (4) and 9b (1). (4) The applicant through a guardian contends, in effect, the applicant received a number of distinguished awards and decorations during his military career. The Board considered this contention, recognized, and appreciate the applicant's three years of service, the willingness to serve and the numerous awards received by the applicant but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the information outlined above in paragraph 9a (4) and 9b (1). (5) The applicant through a guardian contends, in effect, the applicant's "various minor disciplinary infractions," does not justify an "other than honorable" discharge. The board considered but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the information outlined above in paragraph 9a (4) and 9b (1). (6) The applicant through a guardian, contends, in effect, a counselor wrote that Soldiers should be given the directions to their appointed place of duty if they do not know where the location is. The Board considered this contention non-persuasive during its deliberations as the applicant did not provide evidence to support the applicant's assertion of inequity. However, the board voted to upgrade based on the information outlined above in paragraph 9a (4) and 9b (1). (7) The applicant through a guardian contends, in effect, the applicant always committed to a plan of action to resolve the identified issues, such as failure to be at place of duty, when the applicant had a tooth ache, the applicant went to the dental clinic which was inappropriately considered a reprimandable offense. The board considered this contention but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the information outlined above in paragraph 9a (4) and 9b (1). (8) The applicant through a guardian contends, in effect, there is no evidence including no drug test, no blood test, or arrest record for "wrongful use" of BZE (cocaine), D-Amphetamine or Amphetamine. The board considered this contention but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the information outlined above in paragraph 9a (4) and 9b (1). c. The Board determined that the discharge was inequitable based on the applicant's diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, Bipolar Disorder and Schizoaffective Disorder mitigating the applicant's misconduct - wrongfully used cocaine, d-amphetamine, amphetamine, multiple failures to report, and dereliction of duty. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's length of service, in service Adjustment Disorder and pre-enlistment diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder and Schizoaffective Disorder mitigated the applicant's misconduct wrongfully used of cocaine, d-amphetamine, amphetamine, multiple failures to report, and dereliction of duty. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The RE code will not change, mitigating condition is also service limiting. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210008334 1