1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 25 August 2020 b. Date Received: 1 September 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 (UOTHC). The applicant requests an upgrade to show the characterization of service as honorable and narrative reason updated. b. The applicant states, there was improprieties in their case, the center leader was relieved of duty and sent to another battalion, the 1SG was relieved and laterally changed to MSG, and the Commander was relieved and transferred immediately following the outcome of their discharge. c. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 18 October 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 b. Date of Discharge: 12 March 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant’s request for voluntary discharge under provision of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 July 2007 / On 10 September 2012, the applicant completed a second reenlistment for 5 years and on 21 May 2015 extended this contractual obligation for a period of 15 months. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / High School Graduate / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B14 Infantryman / 10 years 6 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR (IADT) / 20 June 20 – 2 September 2006 / Honorable e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: * Afghanistan (AF) / 26 March 2008 – 26 March 2009 / Combat (12 months) * Afghanistan (AF) / 23 August 2010 – 12 August 2011 / Combat (12 months) * Afghanistan (AF) / 24 August 2013 – 11 August 2015 / Combat (12 months) * Germany (GM) / 9 January 2013 – 11 August 2015 / Long (31 months) f. Awards and Decorations: * Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) (4th award) * Army Achievement Medal (AAM) * Valorous Unit Award (VUA) * Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC) (2nd award) * Army Superior Unit Award (ASUA) * Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) (3rd award) * National Defense Service Medal (NDSM) * Afghanistan Campaign Medal (ACM-CS) (3rd award) * Global War on Terrorism – Service Medal (GWTSM) * Non-Commissioned Officer Professional Development (NOPDR) (2nd award) * Army Service Ribbon (ASR) * Overseas Service Ribbon (OSR) (3rd award) * NATO Medal (NATOMDL) * Certificate of Achievement (COA) (2nd award) * Silver Basic Recruiter Badge (RBS) * Combat Infantry Badge (CIB) * Driver Mechanic Badge – Driver Wheel Vehicle (DMB-DWV) g. Performance Ratings: * 2 November 2017 – 28 February 2018 / Not Qualified * 11 December 2014 – 31 July 2015 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) Enlistment/Reenlistment Document provides on 16 July 2007 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and 9 weeks beginning as an E-3. (2) Enlisted Record Brief provides the applicant completed three combat tours in Afghanistan: two yearlong tours from 26 March 2008 – 26 March 2009 and from 23 August 2010 to 12 August 2011, and one seven-month tour, 24 August 2013 – 27 March 2014; Additionally, the applicant completed a 31 month long overseas tour in Gambia from 9 January 2013 – 11 August 2015. Moreover, the applicant has a host of awards and decorations to include but not limited to four Army Commendation Medals, Army Achievement Medal, Valorous Unit Award, and two Meritorious Unit Commendation Ribbons. The applicant received a failed PT score (139) in February 2017. (3) Orders 272-022, promoted the applicant to sergeant effective 1 October 2011. (4) NCO Evaluation Report, covering period 11 December 2014 to 31 July 2015, provides the applicant was rated “Fully Capable” as a Squad Leader, Recruiter, and Weapons Squad Leader; the senior rater on their overall potential, stated they should be promoted to Staff Sergeant ahead of peers, sent to Advanced Leaders Course (ALC), great performance from a very competent NCO who was completely devoted to training and leading their Soldiers, and lastly, the applicant had excellent potential to excel, advising to continue to assign challenging leadership positions of higher responsibility. The applicant endorsed 23 July 2015. (a) The applicant was rated “Excellence” in Competence, by their rater, stated they were selected over six SGTs to serve as Squad Leader for over 75 days; commended by Troop CDR for displaying excellent competence and duty proficiency; chosen as the lead VCE for Troop Gunnery due to superb technical knowledge; created a detailed training plan to ensure crews success certifying 22 Stryker crews; qualified expert with their assigned M4 Carbine; scored 37 out of 40. (b) The applicant was rated “Success” in Physical Fitness & Military Bearing by their rater, stated they scored 262 on the last APFT, planned and executed a rigorous Squad Physical Fitness program which resulted in increasing the Squad’s APFT average from 232 to 252; maintained impeccable military bearing and appearance at all times. (c) The applicant was rated “Success” in the Leadership category by their rater, stated demonstrated the utmost concern and welfare of their Soldiers, devoted numerous hours on and off duty to mentor fellow platoon members; built and maintained a strong sense of teamwork while motivating Soldiers to train for success by using their personal time to train their Soldiers; enforced and upheld the Army’s SHARP and EO policies resulting in zero incidents within their Squad during rating period. (d) The applicant was rated “Excellence” in Responsibility & Accountability by their rater, stated maintained 100% accountability of all assigned MTOE and team equipment valued in excess of $100,000; all equipment remained in serviceable condition; implemented a rigorous maintenance program that enabled a 97% operational readiness rate for their Team’s equipment and one Stryker ICV; conducted six live fire exercises while enforcing the strictest standard of safety and discipline; resulted in zero accidents or incidents during rated period. (5) On 12 December 2017, orders (347-10) provide the applicant’s special duty pay, level 5 ($375) for recruiting, was terminated IAW AR 614-200, Chapter 3, ALARACT 014/2014, and ALARACT 015/2017. (6) NCO Evaluation Report (SGT) covering period 2 November 2017 to 28 February 2018, provides the applicant was rated “Not Qualified” as a recruiter by their senior rater on their Overall Potential, stating the applicant was competent with average performance during rating period but not emulate professionalism, ethics, character nor strengthen America’s Army as a military profession, because they did not honorable fulfill their oath of service; stating they should not be sent to any military school until they have addressed their shortcomings, retention of this NCO is not a priority at this time; do no promote. The applicant endorsed the form on 9 March 2018. (a) For Character, the applicant failed to uphold the Army policies creating a poor work environment resulting in a substantiated SHARP violation, removed from Position of Significant Trust and Authority (POSTA). The applicant engaged in inappropriate personal relationships demonstrating behavior inconsistent with good order and discipline. (b) For Presence, the applicant did not meet standard due to failed to even attempt to pass consecutive APFTs; failed to make suitable progress in the Army Body Composition Program for four consecutive months; Displayed a negative attitude towards female NCOs and the Company Leadership in an open forum several times which resulted in a divided the recruiting station. (c) For Intellect, the applicant displayed a lack of sound judgement during duty hours, resulted in an inappropriate personal relationship with the subject of a recruiting effort; lacked critical thinking affecting unit’s shaping operations; contributed to the station’s inability to fully complete assigned tasks and missions. Additionally, the applicant lacked interpersonal tact, displayed a combative attitude, and degraded the camaraderie and esprit de corps of the organization through their actions. (d) For Leads, the applicant failed to support chain of command and NCO support channels leading to a toxic environment; lacked the trust of superiors and subordinates. The applicant failed to live the NCO creed; used their grade and position to receive pleasure/profit/personal safety. (e) For Develops, the applicant did not foster an environment of fair treatment or awareness of others which allowed turmoil and low morale to breed among the junior enlisted. The applicant displayed in appropriate conduct which adversely affected morale and discipline among peers and subordinates. (f) For Achieves, the applicant was unable to adapt to change; violated equal opportunity (EO) principles by unfairly targeting female NCOs for their performance. The applicant also maintained 100% accountability and maintenance of over $3,000 worth of ADP equipment. (7) On 23 February 2018 the applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. Notwithstanding administrative irregularities, on 1 March 2018, the applicant was issued orders to discharge them from the component. (8) On 12 March 2018, the applicant was discharged accordingly. A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty) reflects the applicant completed 10 years, 7 months, and 25 days of net active service. The applicant honorably completed their first full term of service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Application for the Review of Discharge (DD Form 293) dated 25 August 2020; Two Third Party Statements 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with this application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): b. 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. c. 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. d. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), dated 25 September 2019, 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. e. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (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) An 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. (4) Chapter 10, Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court Martial is applicable to members who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. The request could be submitted at any time after the charges had been preferred. Although an honorable or general was authorized, an under other than honorable conditions discharge was considered appropriate, unless the record was so meritorious it would warrant an honorable. After receiving legal counseling, the soldier may elect to submit a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The soldier will sign a written request, certifying that they have been counseled, understands their rights, and may receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The following will accompany the request for discharge: * A copy of the court-martial Charge Sheet (DD Form 458) * Report of medical examination and mental status evaluation, if conducted * A complete copy of all reports of investigation * Any statement, documents, or other matter considered by the commanding officer in making their recommendation, including any information presented for consideration by the soldier or consulting counsel * A statement of any reasonable ground for belief that the soldier is, or was at the time of misconduct, mentally defective, deranged, or abnormal. When appropriate, evaluation by a psychiatrist will be included. (5) Chapter 15 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. f. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “KFS” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. g. 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. h. Manual for Courts-Martial (2016 Edition), United States, states military law consists of the statutes governing the military establishment and regulations issued thereunder, the constitutional powers of the President and regulations issued thereunder, and the inherent authority of military commanders. Military law includes jurisdiction exercised by courts-martial and the jurisdiction exercised by commanders with respect to nonjudicial punishment. The purpose of military law is to promote justice, to assist in maintaining good orders and discipline in the Armed Forces. (1) Article 93 (cruelty and maltreatment) states in subparagraph the cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment, although not necessarily, physical must be measured by an objective standard; assault, improper punishment, and sexual harassment may constitute this offense. (2) Sexual harassment includes influencing, offering to influence, or threatening the career, pay, or job of another person in exchange for sexual favors, and deliberate or repeated offensive comments or gestures of a sexual nature. The imposition of necessary or proper duties and the exaction of their performance does not constitute this offense even though the duties are arduous or hazardous or both; the maximum punishment consists of a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement 1 year. i. Army Regulation 600-9, The Army Body Composition Program, satisfactory progress in the Army Body Composition Program (ABCP) is considered to be failing the program if a Soldier exhibits less than satisfactory progress on two consecutive ACBCP assessments or after 6 months in the ABCP, Soldier still exceeds body fat standards, and exhibits less than satisfactory progress for three or more (nonconsecutive) monthly ABCP assessments. When a Soldier has failed the program, the commander will request a medical evaluation. (1) If the medical evaluation finds the Soldier has a medical condition that does not meet medical retention standards of AR 40-501 (see medical fitness standards for retention and separation, including retirement) the Soldier will be processed IAW AR 40-501. If the Soldier is found to have a temporary underlying medical condition that directly causes weight gain or prevents weight or body fat loss, the commander will follow requirements in paragraph 3-11b. (2) If the medical evaluation finds no underlying medical condition, then the commander will initiate separation action, bar to continued service, or involuntary transfer to the IRR for RC Soldiers. The commander or supervisor will inform the Soldier, in writing, that a bar to continued service, separation action, or a transfer to the IRR is being initiated. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. b. The applicant requests an upgrade to an honorable characterization of service and a narrative reason change. A review of the records provides there was administrative irregularity in the proper retention of official military records, specifically, the record is void of a charge sheet and the entire separation proceedings. b. However, the available evidence provides while serving as an Infantryman, they deployed on three occasions for a total of 31 months, served overseas in Germany, promoted to the rank of sergeant, received numerous awards, and was rated fully capable as the squad leader, recruiter, and weapons squad leader, with superior potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility. (1) On an unknown date misconduct occurred that resulted in the applicant’s level 5 special duty pay for recruiting was terminated and their last shows a rating of “Not Qualified” and provides as a recruiter, they failed their APFT and had not shown improvement within the four months in the body composition program. (2) Failed to uphold Army policies creating a poor work environment resulting in a substantiated SHARP violation the applicant violated EO principles by unfairly targeting female NCOs for their performance; inappropriate conduct adversely affected morale and discipline among the peers and subordinates. Consequently, the applicant was removed from their POSTA. c. Due to the lack of evidence in the AMHRR, the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the misconduct that led to the applicant voluntarily requesting to be discharged in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. Notwithstanding the lack of evidence, the AMHRR provides separation orders that reduced the applicant to the lowest enlisted grade and a properly constituted DD Form 214 signed by the applicant shows on 12 March 2018 they were discharged accordingly with a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions. At the time they were discharged they had approximately 9 months and 8 days left on their contractual obligation. e. The AMHRR is void of a medical and/or mental health examination; although, not required for a voluntary discharge request, this can be requested by the Soldier. f. Army Regulation 635-200 states a Chapter 10 is a voluntary discharge request in-lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record during the current enlistment. For Soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier’s record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. g. Published DoD guidance indicates the guidance is not intended to interfere or impeded 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: b. KURTA FACTORS: 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 anxiety and depressed mood; PTSD (50%SC). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the diagnosis of Adjustment DO was made during military service. VA service connection for PTSD establishes it occurred/began 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 has been diagnosed with Adjustment DO with mixed anxiety and depressed mood and PTSD (50%SC), neither one of these conditions mitigates his offense of making inappropriate physical contact with a recruit 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. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB determined that the condition or experience did not outweigh the basis of separation. c. Response to Contention(s): In regard to the applicant’s contention of improprieties in within senior leaders in the chain of command immediately follow the outcome of their discharge, the Army Review Board Agency is not an investigative agency, the Board is neutral and makes a determination based on the available evidence. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because of the following reasons: 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 mixed anxiety and depressed mood and PTSD (50%SC), neither one of these conditions mitigates his offense of making inappropriate physical contact with a recruit given that neither condition affects one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. Due to the lack of information on the misconduct an upgrade is not warranted. (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 AR20210009763 1