1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 18 August 2020 b. Date Received: 25 August 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 seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant served in the U.S. Army for 15 years, deployed four times, three to Iraq and once to Afghanistan, and advanced to the rank of sergeant first class (SFC). The applicant was wrongfully accused of a crime that the applicant did not commit and had to appear before a hearing to see if it was going to appear before a court-martial. The case was thrown out because the accuser came forth and told the truth. The next day the applicant’s lawyer had informed the applicant that everything was dropped. However, 3 weeks later the applicant’s commander informed the applicant that a separation board was being pushed. The separation board determined the applicant would be discharged from the military. The applicant spent a week on suicide watch in Alexandria, LA while being cleared from the installation. The applicant was discharged not knowing why the applicant was discharged and nothing was given to the applicant stating the reason. The applicant only received a DD Form 214 with a misconduct narrative reason. The applicant requests an upgrade to better the applicant and continue on with what the applicant started and didn't finish. If the applicant is approved for a discharge upgrade the applicant would like to return to the Army and retire if possible. If the applicant is unable to return to the Army, an upgrade would assist in obtaining a better paying job based on the applicant’s military service and time. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 8 November 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 17 December 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 September 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: (a) On divers occasions between on or about 1 January 2013 and 15 November 2013, the applicant committed a lewd act upon C__y R__y, a child who had attained the age of 12 years, but had not attained the age of 16 years, to wit: touching the genitalia and breast of C__ R__, with an intent to gratify the applicant’s sexual desire. (b) Between on or about 24 October 2013 and on or about 26 October 2013, the applicant committed a sexual act upon C__y R__y, a child who had attained the age of 12 years, but had not attained the age of 16 years, to wit: penetrating C__y R__y’s vulva with the applicant’s penis by using force against C__y R__y’s, to wit: holding C__y R__y’s arms down with the applicant’s hands and spreading her legs. (c) Between on or about 1 October 2011 and on or about October 2012, the applicant engaged in a sexual act, to wit: penetrating with the applicant’s penis the vulva of C__y R__y, a child who had attained the age of 12 years, but had not attained the age of 16 years, by using strength sufficient that C__y R__y could not avoid or escape the sexual conduct. (d) Between on or about 1 October to 2011 to 1 October 2012, the applicant engaged in sexual contact with C__y R__y, a child who had attained the age of 12 years, but had not attained the age of 16 years, to wit: touching with the applicant’s hands the breasts and the genitalia of C__y R__y. (e) Between on or about 1 October to 2011 to 1 October 2012, the applicant engaged in a lewd act, to wit: causing C__y R__y, a child who had attained the age of 12 years, but had not attained the age of 16 years, to touch the applicant’s genitalia with C__y R__y’s hand. (f) Between on or about 1 December 2010 and on or about 31 December 2012, the applicant engaged in a lewd act with C__l R__y, a child who had attained the age of 12 years, but had not attained the age of 16 years, to wit: touching with the applicant’s hands C__l R__y’s breasts. (g) Between on or about 30 July 2011 and on or about 29 July 2012, the applicant engaged in sexual contact with C__a R__y to wit: touching with the applicant’s hands the breast and the genitalia of C__a R__y, a child who had not attained the age of 12 years. (h) On or about 9 May 2013, the applicant made a false official statement to CID Agent J__ A. H__, to wit: denying having made offensive comments regarding Specialist (SPC) M__ Y. R__’s buttocks. (i) On or about 30 April 2013, the applicant maltreated SPC R__, by making comments regarding SPC R__’s buttocks, to wit: SPC R__ has two hams back there. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 September 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: 14 November 2014 / The Administrative Separation Board met; the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant be discharged with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 December 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 February 2011 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 33 / High School Graduate / 88 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 15 years, 3 months, and 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 15 September 1999 - 15 February 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Iraq (10 January 2003 - 30 August 2003; 1 August 2005 - 30 November 2006; 21 September 2008 - 20 September 2009); Afghanistan (26 July 2011 - 5 March 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ICM-3CS, ARCOM-6, AAM-5, USA/USAF PUC, VUA, AGCM-5, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-3, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 1 March 2006 - 28 February 2007 / Fully Capable 1 March 2007 - 29 February 2008 / Among The Best 1 March 2008 - 28 February 2009 / Among The Best 1 March 2009 - 27 November 2009 / Fully Capable 28 November 2009 - 27 November 2010 / Among The Best 28 November 2010 - 15 June 2011 / Among The Best 16 June 2011 - 30 April 2012 / Among The Best 1 May 2012 - 30 April 2013 / Among The Best 1 May 2013 - 30 April 2014 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) CID Report of Investigation - Final, 26 June 2013, shows an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Abusive Sexual Conduct (Adult) when the applicant touched SPC R__’s buttocks and False Official Statement when the applicant denied touching SPC R__’s buttocks, a statement the applicant knew to be false. (2) Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, 1 August 2013, shows the applicant was charged with: (a) Violation of Article 120: The applicant on or about 30 April 2013, cause sexual contact with SPC R__ by causing bodily harm to SPC R__, to wit: sitting on SPC R__'s buttocks with the applicant’s buttocks for approximately two seconds, and such sexual contact was without legal justification or lawful authorization and without the permission of SPC R__. Plea: Not Guilty, Finding: Not Guilty (b) Violation of Article 107: The applicant on or about 9 May 2013, with intent to deceive, make to Special Agent J__ A. H__, CID, an official statement, to wit: denying having made offensive comments regarding SPC R__'s buttocks and denying having made contact with SPC R__'s buttocks, which statement was totally false, and was then known by the applicant to be so false. Plea: Not Guilty, Finding: Guilty (c) Violation of Article 93: The applicant on or about 30 April 2013, maltreat SPC R__, a person subject to the applicant’s orders, by making comments regarding SPC R__’s buttocks, to wit: “R__ has two hams back there” or words to that effect. Plea: Not Guilty, Finding: Guilty (3) Department of Defense Report of Result of Trial shows the applicant was tried in a Summary Court-Martial on 1 August 2013. The applicant was charged with two violations of: (a) Violation of Article 107: Same as Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial. Guilty, inconsistent with the plea. (b) Violation of Article 93: Same as Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial. Guilty, inconsistent with the plea. (c) The sentenced adjudged: Reduction from SFC (E-7) to Staff Sergeant (E-6) effective 15 August 2013. (4) Memorandums, Legal Review of Record of Trial for Summary Court-Martial - U.S. vs. (Applicant), 26 August 2013, and Legal Review of Summary Court-Martial, 12 September 2013, had no legal objections and no irregularities in the record of trial. (5) CID Report of Investigation - Final, 22 March 2014, shows an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offenses Aggravated Sexual Assault and Rape when the applicant engaged in sexual acts with C__y R__Y against C__y R__y’s will on multiple occasions. In addition, the investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Abusive Sexual Contact when the applicant touched C__a R__y (12 years old) and C__l R__y (14 years old) in a sexual manner. The applicant was interviewed and denied all the allegations. (6) DA Form 4833 (Commander Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action) shows the applicant was referred on 28 March 2014 for Rape of Child by Force on 1 September 2009, two counts of Aggravated Sexual Assault of Child by Force on 2 October 2010 and 28 June 2012, and Abusive Sexual Contact with a Child (under age of 16) on 1 September 2010. (7) Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers, 14 November 2014, shows the board of officers found: (a) Six of the nine reasons listed in the Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. (b) By a preponderance of the evidence, the applicant was not desirable for further retention in the service of the U.S. Army. (c) In view of the findings, the Board recommended that the applicant be separated from active service with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. (d) On 5 December 2014, the appointing authority approved the findings and recommendations of the board. b. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Helps within the community for food drives, donations for the homeless, and fundraisers for suicide and breast cancer awareness. The applicant is the brigade treasurer for the applicant’s wife's Family Readiness Group at Fort Sam Houston and currently employed by AAFES. 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 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. (6) 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. (7) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes, provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for 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. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. a. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s AMHRR, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. b. The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the applicant served 15 years, 3 months, and 3 days during which the applicant served 5 years, 11 months and 28 days between Iraq and Afghanistan. The applicant was found guilty of violating Articles 107 and 93. The applicant was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions character of service on 12 December 2014. c. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant was wrongfully accused of a crime that the applicant did not commit. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, that the applicant was wrongly accused. The applicant’s AMHRR contains a Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, 1 August 2013, that shows the applicant was found guilty of violating Articles 120, 107, and 93. d. The applicant contends, in effect, the case was thrown out because the accuser came forth and told the truth. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention that the case was thrown out. e. The applicant contends, in effect, nothing was given to the applicant stating the reason for the discharge other than a DD Form 214 with a misconduct narrative reason. The applicant’s AMHRR contains the applicant’s acknowledgment of receipt of the Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, 1 August 2013, that shows the applicant was found guilty of violating of Articles 107 and 93. The applicant understood the applicant would receive another copy signed by the convening authority. In addition, the applicant acknowledged receipt of memorandum, Separation under AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, 12 September 2014, which lists the reasons for the proposed separation. f. The applicant contends good service, including 15 years of service in the Army, four deployments, three to Iraq and once to Afghanistan, and promotion to SFC. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. g. The applicant requests an upgrade to the characterization of service to rejoin the Army. At the time of discharge, the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Army Regulation 601-210, chapter 4, stipulates an under other than honorable conditions discharge constitutes a non-waivable disqualification; thus, the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. h. The applicant requests an upgrade to better the applicant’s life and to assist in obtaining a better paying job based on the applicant’s military service and time. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. i. Published Department of Defense 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 disturbance of emotions and Adjustment DO with depressed mood. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the diagnoses of Adjustment DO with disturbance of emotions and Adjustment DO with depressed mood were both made while applicant was on active duty. (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 has been diagnosed with Adjustment DO with disturbance of emotions and Adjustment DO with depressed mood, neither of these conditions mitigates the offense of sexually assaulting a minor, sexually harassing a SPC or making a false official statement 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 with disturbance of emotions an Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – sexual assault of a minor and sexual harassment – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant was wrongfully accused of a crime that the applicant did not commit. The Board considered this contention and determined, based on a preponderance of evidence, that the applicant was found liable to both assault and harassment in separate investigations. Therefore, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support eh applicant’s contentions. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, the case was thrown out because the accuser came forth and told the truth. The Board considered this contention and found insufficient evidence in the applicant’s file to support the assertion. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support eh applicant’s contentions. (3) The applicant contends, in effect, nothing was given to the applicant stating the reason for the discharge other than a DD Form 214 with a misconduct narrative reason. The Board considered this contention and found the assertions to be inaccurate as the applicant provided evidence counter to the applicant’s contention, acknowledging the separation under commission of a serious offense. (4) The applicant contends good service, including 15 years of service in the Army, four deployments, three to Iraq and once to Afghanistan, and promotion to SFC. The Board considered this contention and acknowledged the applicant’s 15 years of service but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s sexual misconduct. c. The Board determined not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, did not excuse or mitigate the sexual misconducts offenses. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s conduct fell below that level of satisfactory service warranting a General discharge or meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder with disturbance of emotions and Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of sexual misconduct. 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. While the applicant has been diagnosed with Adjustment DO with disturbance of emotions and Adjustment DO with depressed mood, neither of these conditions mitigates the offense of sexually assaulting a minor, sexually harassing a SPC or making a false official statement given that neither condition affects one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. (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 AR20210009263 1