1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 August 2020 b. Date Received: 14 December 2020 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant's Requests and Issues: (1) The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. (2) The applicant states, they were sexually assaulted in service that caused their Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with substance abuse. They are currently seeking treatment at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Please review the attached VA Rating Decision, dated 13 June 2019, showing the VA agreed that their PTSD with substance abuse is due to Military Sexual Trauma (MST) from their military service. (a) The circumstances surrounding their military sexual trauma and how they were treated afterward by their assailant and their command. The applicant later officially reported the incident and requested to move to a different assignment. They learned there was not enough evidence to charge her assailant and they were being charged with making a false statement and lying to military police. The charges against them were eventually dismissed; however, the paperwork related to the incident were lost. (b) On the two year anniversary of their incident of being raped, they attended a concert, they had a few drinks and was offered an illegal drug, which they took. They regretted this decision deeply. They just made one terrible decision while going through the darkest part of their life. They wrote a letter pleading their case and attached character references from their chain of command. The applicant now writes for the Board to consider all the evidence and review the character statements previously submitted during their separation proceedings. (c) They have completed cognitive processing therapy to move past their rape incident and live the best life they can. They have since moved out of state, currently living independently, work, and achieving a 4.0 in college. They know they made a grave mistake and ask for the Board not to wipe out their 3 years of honorable service and grant their request for an upgrade of their character of service on their DD Form 214 to honorable. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 20 October 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD diagnosis and MST experience). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. Based on the applicant's medical diagnosis the board determined the RE code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 28 March 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 January 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant, between on or about 21 September 2017 and on or about 26 September 2017, wrongfully used cocaine, a schedule II controlled substance. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 January 2018 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 March 2018 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 April 2015 / 3 weeks, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 119 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92G10, Culinary Specialist / 2 years, 11 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) A DD Form 2910 (Victim Reporting Preference Statement), dated 6 June 2016, reflects the applicant's submission of unrestricted reporting as they were a victim of a sexual assault. The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief reflects they were reassigned to the 2nd Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment on 2 December 2016. (2) The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC) memorandum, subject: Law Enforcement Report/Final, dated 3 October 2017, reflects the applicant as the subject with the offense of making a False Official Statement. The Report Summary states - (a) Their office was notified by a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, that the applicant reported that they were sexually assaulted. The applicant stated she consumed an undetermined amount of alcohol and became heavily intoxicated. They were given a ride to the in-processing barracks and on the way there Private First Class (PFC) (Redacted) committed a sexual act against them. PFC (Redacted) was advised of their legal rights and stated the applicant had sex in their vehicle after receiving fellatio from the applicant. PFC (Redacted) denied they sexually assaulted the applicant, indicating all sexual activity between them was consensual. (b) A digital examination of a message sent from the applicant to the accused's cell phone revealed the applicant threatened to report them for rape if the accused did not stop discussing the sexual encounter between them the first weekend at Joint Base Lewis-McChord. (c) On 6 September 2017, Trial Counsel, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, opined no probable cause exists to believe the applicant committed the offense of False Official Statement. No additional investigative efforts are required. There is sufficient evidence to provide to command for consideration of action. (3) Electronic Copy of DD 2624, dated 17 October 2017, reflects the applicant tested positive for COC 159 during a Command Policy/Inspection Other (IO) urinalysis conducted on 26 September 2017. (4) Two DA Forms 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag), dated 18 October 2017, reflects the applicant had flagging actions initiated against them for drug abuse adverse action and for involuntary separation. (5) A DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 2 November 2017, reflects the applicant was had no duty limitations due to behavioral health reasons and currently meets medical retention standards and is cleared for administrative action. The applicant can understand and participate in administrative processing, appreciate the difference between right and wrong and meets medical retention requirements (i.e., does not qualify for a Medical Evaluation Board). (a) Section IV (Diagnoses) reflects "No diagnosis." (b) Section V (Follow-Up Recommendations) - reflects a recommended command referral for a Substance Use & Substance Use Disorder evaluation. (c) Section VI (Recommendations and Comments for Commander) reflects the service member (SM) can understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong; from a behavioral health perspective, SM is cleared for administrative separation as deemed appropriate by command and meets the medical fitness standards for retention. There is no indication of a behavior health disorder interfering with SM's ability to perform all assigned military duties without limitations. (6) A DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 15 November 2017, shows the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment for, between on or about 21 September 2017 and on or about 26 September 2017, wrongful use of cocaine, a schedule II-controlled substance. Punishment consisted of a reduction to the rank/grade of private/E-1, forfeiture of $799.00 pay per month for 2 months, extra duty for 45 days and an oral reprimand. The applicant elected not to appeal. (7) On 26 August 2021, in order to complete the record, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) requested a redacted Criminal Investigation Department/Military Police Report of Investigation (ROI); upon receipt of the redacted ROI, ARBA provided a copy [Exparte] and placed the processing of the applicant's petition on hold for 15 days to allow them to submit comments regarding the report. As of date the applicant has not responded to the following redated report: (a) A memorandum, subject: Law Enforcement Report/Initial Final, dated 16 November 2017, reflects the applicant as the named subject with the offense of Wrongful Use of Cocaine - Detected by Urinalysis. The Report Summary states - (b) Their office was notified by the Army Substance Abuse Program Coordinator that the applicant tested positive for a controlled substance during a unit urinalysis. The applicant rendered a urine sample during an inspection unit urinalysis, which tested positive for Cocaine. The applicant declined to provide a statement to this office and requested a lawyer. (c) On 3 November 2017, Trial Counsel, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, opined probable cause existed to believe the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Use of Cocaine. No additional investigative efforts are required. There is sufficient evidence to provide to command for consideration of action. (8) A DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), dated 25 January 2018, shows in - * Item 13I (Sexually Transmitted Disease) the applicant marked "Yes" * Item 29 *Explanation of "Yes" Answers) - item 13l Clymidia was treated * Item 30a (Examiners Summary and Elaboration on All Pertinent Data/Comments): item 13L - Noted (9) A DD 2808 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 25 January 2018, reflects the applicant is qualified for service with no disqualifying medical conditions or diagnoses. (10) Company E, 2nd Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment memorandum, subject: Separation Under Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c(2), Misconduct-Abuse of Illegal Drugs [Applicant], dated 26 January 2018, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of their intent to separate them under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), Misconduct - Abuse of Illegal Drugs, with a recommended characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions) for, between on or about 21 September 2017 and 26 September 2017, wrongfully used cocaine. On the same day the applicant acknowledged the basis for the separation and of the right available to them (11) On 29 January 2018, the applicant completed their election of rights signing they had been advised by counsel of the basis for their separation and its effects and of the rights available to them. (12) On 5 February 2018, the commander submitted the request to separate the applicant prior to their expiration term of service. (13) Headquarters, 7th Infantry Division memorandum, subject: Separation Under Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c(2), Misconduct-Abuse of Illegal Drugs [Applicant], dated 13 March 2018, the separation authority directed that the applicant' be separated from the Army prior to the expiration of current term of service and their service be characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions). (14) On 28 March 2018, the applicant was discharged accordingly, the DD Form 214 provides the applicant completed 2 year, 11 months, and 15 days of net active service this period. The applicant has not completed the first full term of service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: VA disability rating decision, dated 13 June 2019, reflecting the applicant was rated 70-percent disability for PTSD (also claimed with other substance use disorder). (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: * DD Form 293 * Five letters of reference that appear to have been submitted on the applicant's behalf during the separation process attesting to the applicant's good military bearing, personal and professional performance and character, and acceptance of the misconduct. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1553, , (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense (DoD) Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board) sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1553; and DoD Directive 1332.41 and DoD Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), 6 September 2011, set policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. (1) An Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (2) A General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (3) A Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct) established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. Paragraph 14-12c(2) (Abuse of Illegal Drugs is Serious Misconduct), stated, however; relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct and processed for separation. (5) Chapter 15 (Secretarial Plenary Authority), currently in effect, provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c(2), misconduct (drug abuse). f. Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DoD Instructions 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: (1) RE-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. (2) RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. (3) RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. g. Army Regulation 600-85 (Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP)) dated 28 December 2012, provided a comprehensive alcohol and drug abuse prevention and control policies, procedures, and responsibilities for Soldiers for ASAP services. The ASAP is a command program that emphasizes readiness and personal responsibility. The ultimate decision regarding separation or retention of abusers is the responsibility of the Soldier's chain of command. Abuse of alcohol or the use of illicit drugs by military personnel is inconsistent with Army values and the standards of performance, discipline, and readiness necessary to accomplish the Army's mission. (1) Unit commanders must intervene early and refer all Soldiers suspected or identified as alcohol and/or drug abusers to the ASAP. The unit commander should recommend enrollment based on the Soldier's potential for continued military service in terms of professional skills, behavior, and potential for advancement. (2) ASAP participation is mandatory for all Soldiers who are command referred. Failure to attend a mandatory counseling session may constitute a violation of Article 86 (Absence Without Leave) of the UCMJ. (3) Alcohol and/or other drug abusers, and in some cases dependent alcohol users, may be enrolled in the ASAP when such enrollment is clinically recommended. Soldiers who fail to participate adequately in, or to respond successfully to, rehabilitation will be processed for administrative separation and not be provided another opportunity for rehabilitation except under the most extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the Clinical Director in consultation with the unit commander. (4) All Soldier who are identified as drug abusers, without exception, will be referred to the ASAP counseling center for screening; be considered for disciplinary action under the UCMJ, as appropriate; and be processed for administrative separation in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200. h. Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 Edition) stated, 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 order and discipline in the Armed Forces. Appendix 12 (Maximum Punishment Chart) Manual for Courts-Martial shows the maximum punishments include punitive discharge for violating the following Article 112a (Wrongful Use, Possession, etc., of Controlled Substances). 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): a. The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by DoD Instruction 1332.28. b. A review of the available evidence provides the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment for tested positive on a command urinalysis for wrongful use of cocaine. They completed 2 year, 11 months, and 15 days of their 3-year, 21-week contractual obligation. c. The evidence shows the applicant received a general discharge rather than a discharge under other than honorable conditions, which is normally considered appropriate. d. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separation members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. e. Appendix 12 (Maximum Punishment Chart) Manual for Courts-Martial shows the maximum punishments may include punitive discharge, confinement and forfeiture of pay for violating the following Article 112a (Wrongful Use, Possession, etc., of Controlled Substances). f. Published DoD guidance indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: the applicant was diagnosed in-service with an Adjustment Disorder and GAD with reported MST. Post- service, she is service connected for PTSD secondary to MST. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed in-service with an Adjustment Disorder and GAD with reported MST. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between substance use and trauma, the basis for separation is mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD diagnosis and MST experience outweighed the wrongful use of cocaine basis for separation for the aforementioned reason. b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant contends they were sexually assaulted in service that caused their PTSD with substance abuse. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to PTSD and MST experience mitigating the applicant's wrongful use of cocaine. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD diagnosis and MST experience). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. Based on the applicant's medical diagnosis the board determined the RE code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD and MST experience mitigated the applicant's misconduct of wrongful use of cocaine. The Board found sufficient evidence of an in-service mitigating factor (Length) and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official that the applicant's diagnosis and experience outweigh the applicant's misconduct. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JFF. (3) The RE code will not change, as the Board determined that the current RE code is proper and equitable given the applicant's medical diagnosis. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Secretarial Authority / JFF d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200 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 AR20210010617 1