1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 15 July 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. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, to have been enrolled in a substance abuse program with behavioral health, when the applicant was drug tested by the unit on two separate occasions. The Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) program regulation clearly states while in this program the ASAP counselor would be the only one to administer a urinalysis, and if the command gave a urinalysis, it could not be used in an administrative procedure or separation. The applicant attached two documents that support why the applicant should have been given a Chapter 9 discharge instead of Chapter 10. The applicant’s ASAP counselor explained to the applicant why the applicant should have received a Chapter 9. The applicant successfully completed the program and has a previous honorable enlistment. b. 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. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 5 November 2019 c. Separation Facts: NIF (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): NIF (2) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: NIF (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 October 2017 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / Associate Degree / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 68R10, Veterinary Food Inspector / 4 years, 11 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 18 November 2014 - 19 October 2017 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany f. Awards and Decorations: ASUA, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NIF h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), 18 December 2018, shows the applicant was driving under the influence of alcohol on 1 December 2018. At 0435 hours, the applicant was stopped by German Police. Upon initial contact, the officers detected an odor of alcohol and administered a portable breath alcohol test, which indicated impairment. The applicant was then transported to the Military Police station and administered an INTOXILYZER 9000 breath alcohol test, which resulted in 0.109 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath (0.109g/210L). Under host nation laws, the legal limit for operating a vehicle on German roadways is 0.05g/210L. Receipt For Inmate or Detained Person, 1 December 2018, shows the applicant was charged with Drunken Operation of a Motor Vehicle. Law Enforcement Report - 1st Corrected Final, 20 January 2019, shows an investigation established the applicant committed the offense of Drunken Operation of a Motor Vehicle. On 1 December 2018, the applicant initially waived legal rights and rendered a written statement (see Sworn Statement), denying the consumption of alcohol and further stated to have consumed medication instead. The applicant invoked legal rights and requested legal counsel. FG Article 15, 14 March 2019, for: With an intent to deceive, make to Specialist C__, an official statement, to wit: “[Applicant] was not under the influence of alcohol. [Applicant] was taking medication.” A statement which was totally false and was then known by the applicant to be false on or about 1 December 2018. Physically control a vehicle (passenger car), while drunk on or about 1 December 2018. The punishment consisted of a reduction from E-5 to E-4; forfeiture of $1,277.00 pay per month for 2 months. The applicant provided Memorandum For Applicant, Separation Under Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, chapter 14-12c (2), Misconduct-Abuse of Illegal Drugs, 12 July 2019, showing the company commander initiated action to separate the applicant for misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs for wrongfully using marijuana between on or about 24 February 2019 and on or about 24 March 2019. Between on or about 15 January 2019 and on or about 22 January 2019, the applicant wrongfully used methylenedioxymethamphetamine. Additionally, on or about 24 March 2019, the applicant failed to obey a lawful order from a commissioned officer. On or about 1 December 2018, the applicant made a false statement and physically controlled a vehicle while drunk. The company commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The applicant provided Substance Use Disorder Clinical Care (SUDCC) (previously known as ASAP-Rehab) Letter, 30 July 2019, stating the applicant has been a participant in SUDCC since 9 April 2019. The applicant remains compliant with behavioral health (BH) and SUDCC provider recommendations. The applicant's UDS have been negative for all substances including alcohol use since enrollment on 9 April 2019. The applicant was recommended to remain engaged with BH services, including SUDCC, while in the separation process from the Army. The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief, 6 November 2019, shows the applicant was flagged for drug abuse adverse action (UA), effective 20 August 2019 and elimination - field initiated (BA), effective 3 April 2019; was ineligible for reenlistment due to pending separation (9V). The Assignment Eligibility Availability (AEA) code shows AEA code “L” which has no assignment restrictions. FLAGS / AEA codes: UA, BA / L RE/Prohibition codes: 9V DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), 1 December 2018, shows the applicant was flagged for alcohol abuse adverse action (VA), effective 3 December 2019. DA Form 268, 1 December 2018, shows the applicant was flagged for law enforcement investigation (MA), effective 3 December 2019. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Landstuhl Regional Medical Center medical records, showing: * 13 June 2019 - adjustment disorder with depressed mood and insomnia, unspecified with psych therapy and antidepressant medication * 27 June 2019 - diagnostic impression - adjustment disorder; main target symptoms are insomnia, irritability, mood lability; tolerating escitalopram and trazodone; early signs of efficacy * 8 August 2019 - diagnostic impression - hypomanic episode related to antidepressant medication; positive FH bipolar disorder; adjustment disorder; main target symptoms were insomnia, irritability, mood liability; escitalopram and trazodone was discontinued (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; commander notification of initiation of separation memorandum; third party statement; SUDCC letter; medical record. 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. AR 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) and AR 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resources Records Management) both require supporting documents for an approved separation action to be maintained in the affected Soldier's official military personnel file. e. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Paragraph 3-7c states Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. (6) Paragraph 10-2 states, (a) Commanders will ensure that a Soldier is not coerced into submitting a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The Soldier will be given a reasonable time (not less than 72 hours) to consult with consulting counsel (see paragraph 3-7h) and to consider the wisdom of submitting such a request for discharge. (b) Consulting counsel will advise the Soldier concerning elements of the offense(s) charged, burden of proof, possible defenses and punishments, provisions of this chapter, requirements of volunteerism, type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, rights regarding the withdrawal of the Soldier’s request, loss of veterans’ benefits, and prejudice in civilian life based upon the characterization of discharge. Consulting counsel may advise the Soldier regarding the merits of this separation action and the offense pending against the Soldier. (c) After receiving counseling (see (a), above), 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, may receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and understands the adverse nature of such a discharge and the possible consequences. (d) The Soldier’s written request will also include an acknowledgment that they understand the elements of the offense(s) charged and is guilty of the charge(s) or of a lesser included offense(s) therein contained which also authorizes the imposition of a punitive discharge. A Soldier may waive consultation with counsel, however, they consulted with Counsel, consulting counsel will sign as a witness. (7) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II.) (8) Paragraph 10b stipulates Soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier’s record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. (9) Paragraph 10-10, Limited use evidence, states due diligence should be exercised to avoid including limited use evidence in a separation action under this chapter, but the inclusion of such evidence will not form the basis for a Soldier to challenge the separation or the characterization of service. If limited use evidence is included in the separation action, the requirement that an honorable discharge be given due to the introduction of limited use evidence does not apply to separations under this chapter. The separation authority will include a statement in the approval of separation under this chapter that the inclusion of any information in the separation packet, which may be considered limited use evidence, was excluded as evidence from and not considered or used against the Soldier on the issue of characterization in accordance with DoDI 1010.01 and AR 600-85. (10) 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 (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. 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 AMHRR includes partial facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s electronic signature. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, by reason of In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the applicant served 4 years, 11 months, and 18 days during which the applicant served 1 year and 24 days of foreign service in Germany. The applicant received a GOMOR on 18 December 2018, which shows the applicant was driving under the influence of alcohol on 1 December 2018. A Law Enforcement Report - 1st Corrected Final, 20 January 2019, shows an investigation established the applicant committed the offense of Drunken Operation of a Motor Vehicle. The applicant provided a notification memorandum for initiation of separation under AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2), Misconduct-Abuse of Illegal Drugs, however the applicant was separated under AR 635-200, chapter 10 on 5 November 2019 with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The applicant’s AMHRR is void a charge sheet, the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court- martial and the separation authority’s decision memorandum. The evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel, voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and indicated an understanding an under other than honorable conditions discharge could be received, and the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans’ benefits. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends, in effect, while enrolled in a substance abuse program with BH, the applicant was drug tested by the unit on two separate occasions which is against the regulation under the ASAP program. The applicant states if the command gave a urinalysis, it could not be used in an administrative procedure or separation. The applicant provided two letters that state, during enrollment in ASAP it was explained to the command and the applicant that all urinalyses would be conducted by the ASAP authority. The command may still do a urinalysis, but it could not be used in an administrative or legal action while in ASAP per regulation. The applicant's UDS have been negative for all substances including alcohol use since enrollment on 9 April 2019. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant’s ASAP counselor explained to the applicant why the applicant should have received a Chapter 9 instead of Chapter 10. Chapter 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the ASAP for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant has a previous honorable enlistment. The applicant’s DD Form 214 in the AMHRR shows the applicant had honorable service from 18 November 2014 - 19 October 2017. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. Analyst notes the applicant marked the PTSD and other mental health boxes on the DD Form 293; however, the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the claim of PTSD. The applicant provided Landstuhl Regional Medical Center medical records, showing: * adjustment disorder with depressed mood and insomnia, unspecified with psych therapy and antidepressant medication * diagnostic impression - adjustment disorder; main target symptoms are insomnia, irritability, mood lability; tolerating escitalopram and trazodone; early signs of efficacy * diagnostic impression - hypomanic episode related to antidepressant medication; positive FH bipolar disorder; adjustment disorder; main target symptoms were insomnia, irritability, mood liability; escitalopram and trazodone was discontinued 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 depressed mood; Other Reactions to Severe Stress; Antidepressant-Induced Hypomanic Episode. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s Adjustment DO with depressed mood; Other Reactions to Severe Stress; Antidepressant-Induced Hypomanic Episode were diagnosed 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 on active duty, the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment DO with depressed mood, Other Reactions to Severe Stress and Antidepressant-induced Hypomanic Episode, mild. Neither Adjustment DO with depressed mood nor Other Reactions to Severe Stress mitigates his drug related misconduct or false official statement due to fact that both conditions arose as a result of the consequences of said misconduct and, as such, cannot mitigate said misconduct. The diagnosis of antidepressant induced hypomanic episode also does not mitigate his misconduct as this diagnosis was made long after he had engaged in said misconduct and was not related in any way to said misconduct. (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. b. Prior Decisions Cited: None c. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, while enrolled in a substance abuse program with BH, the applicant was drug tested by the unit on two separate occasions which is against the regulation under the ASAP program. The Board considered this contention but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s reason for separation. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant’s ASAP counselor explained to the applicant why the applicant should have received a Chapter 9 instead of Chapter 10. The Board considered this contention but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s reason for separation. (3) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant has a previous honorable enlistment. The Board considered this contention but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s reason for separation. d. 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. e. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service due to the following reasons: The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there are no mitigating BH conditions. While on active duty, the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment DO with depressed mood, Other Reactions to Severe Stress and Antidepressant- induced Hypomanic Episode, mild. Neither Adjustment DO with depressed mood nor Other Reactions to Severe Stress mitigates his drug related misconduct or false official statement due to fact that both conditions arose as a result of the consequences of said misconduct and, as such, cannot mitigate said misconduct. The diagnosis of antidepressant induced hypomanic episode also does not mitigate his misconduct as this diagnosis was made long after he had engaged in said misconduct and was not related in any way to said misconduct. All contentions were considered, to include his length of time in service and prior HD service. However, based on the non-BH mitigation of this misconduct, the Board concurred the current discharge is appropriate. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210009765 1