1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 27 June 2022 b. Date Received: 20 July 2022 c. Counsel: Yes 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 through counsel requests an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions) and a narrative reason change, a separation code change, and a reentry code change. The applicant through counsel seeks relief contending, in effect, the ADRB (Board) should review and determine whether the discharge was properly based on the standards of equity and propriety; to consider the fact the applicant was denied due process when appeared before an administrative separation board without the benefit of effective representation; to take into account the diagnosed mental health conditions were related to and presented after the deployment to Afghanistan, which exacerbated a few previously undiagnosed mental health conditions to include childhood PTSD and trauma; and to consider the list of achievements the applicant earned despite struggling through mental health conditions and while facing serious legal issues. At the conclusion of the investigation by Federal law enforcement for possession of child pornography which the applicant accepted responsibility for, the applicant was convicted in a Federal court for one count of receipt of child pornography. During the eventual resolution of the matter consuming three years of the life, the applicant continued to serve on active duty without incident, earned a Master’s degree, and mustered the courage to seek help for mental health concerns, which had surfaced following the deployment. After several evaluations and continued active-duty service, the applicant was found with five diagnostic impressions: Unspecified Dissociative Disorder; PTSD; Major Depressive Disorder; Generalized Anxiety Disorder; and Alcohol Use Disorder. For important consideration, the Army was in possession of the thorough and detailed mental health assessment conducted as part of the Federal court process and conducted during continued service on active duty. The detailed military counsel failed to provide the applicant with the quality of representation demanded by the rules of professional conduct and failed to zealously advocate for the client, the applicant. Because of errors made by the detailed counsel, the separation board was denied the ability to review and consider all relevant and material evidence prior to making findings and recommendations and the applicant was denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The short deliberation period was very suspect, and no well-intentioned board could review an OMPF, charges, complex psychiatric reports and have a fulsome discussion in approximately 15 minutes. Accordingly, the board prejudged the applicant’s case or did not due the due diligence. The counsel contends the Board should restore some honor to the applicant and validate the mental health issues, which were diagnosed while on active duty. If diagnosed earlier, perhaps the applicant would have been medically discharged. As with many returning from deployments had mental health issues following the battlefield, the applicant not only experienced anxiety related to the deployment but triggered dormant mental health issues. Like others who suffer from overwhelming mental struggles, the applicant sought methods to escape and to numb the internal pain. The applicant’s case should be reviewed with the same equitable considerations of those considered under reopened ADRB cases where the issues of mental health were raised according to changes in the laws and in Defense Department guidance since the ADRB decided those former Soldiers’ cases, in which the ADRB would automatically reconsider the identified cases considering the new laws and guidance. In particular, the Board would consider whether PTSD, TBI, MST, and/or other behavioral health issues related to the Soldier’s service may have contributed to the reasons they were discharged. The applicant’s case is no different than other cases being reconsidered by this Board. Only the Board has the authority to look at the totality of the circumstances and recognize the errors in the process alongside the accomplishments the applicant made while enduring a three-year investigation and struggling to cope with mental health issues, and to restore some of the honor to the applicant. Counsel further details the contentions in an allied legal brief with the application, and the applicant further details the contentions, and the active duty and post service accomplishments in the applicant’s self-authored letter. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 9 December 2022, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Civil Conviction) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14, Sec II / JKB / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 20 February 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (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: 2 August 2010 / 3 years, per AGR Orders 207-1, dated 26 July 2010; 24 January 2011 / 2 years, 6 months, 9 days, until 1 August 2013, per AGR Orders 49-12, dated 18 February 2011; 5 April 2013 / 3 years, until 31 August 2016, per AGR Orders 93-46, 197-4, and 040-02, dated 3 April 2013,16 July 2015, and 5 February 2016. (On 29 January 2015, extended enlistment to 20 February 2019) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / Bachelor of Arts – Psychology / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 15P10, Aviation Operations Specialist / 10 years, 11 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 23 February 2008 – 28 May 2008 / NA IADT, 29 May 2008 – 8 October 2008 / HD ARNG, 9 October 2008 – (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (6 July 2014 – 6 December 2014) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, NATO MDL, ACM-CS, OSR, AFRMMD, GWOTEM The applicant’s AMHRR reflects award of the NATO MDL, ACM-CS, OSR, AFRMMD, GWOTEM, however, the awards are not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: 2 August 2010 – 1 August 2011 / Fully Capable 2 August 2011 – 31 July 2012 / Fully Capable 1 August 2011 – 16 June 2013 / Among the Best 17 June 2013 – 16 June 2014 / Among the Best 1 December 2014 – 15 July 2015 / Among the Best 16 July 2015 – 15 July 2016 / Exceeded Standard 16 July 2016 – 15 July 2017 / Exceeded Standard 16 July 2017 – 15 July 2018 / Exceeded Standard h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The counsel on behalf of the applicant provided a copy of a Mental Health Evaluation, dated 15 December 2018, rendered by Ms. C. C., a Licensed Clinical Mental Health Counselor, Certified Abel Assessor, and a Sex Specific Forensic Mental Evaluator, referred for a sex specific mental health evaluation as a requisite for sentencing in a federal court, assessed the applicant on 6 and 7 December 2018, provided a detailed diagnoses of an “Unspecified Dissociative Disorder”; “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Dissociative Subtype”; “Major Depressive Disorder, Severe; Generalized Anxiety Disorder”; and “Alcohol Use Disorder.” 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; and Attorney Brief with listed enclosures. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is employed at a restaurant. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board) sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Paragraph 3-7c states Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (6) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (7) Section II, Paragraph 14-5, prescribes conditions which subject a Soldier to discharge and reduction in grade. A Soldier may be considered for discharge when initially convicted by civil authorities, or when action is taken that is tantamount to a finding of guilty, if one of the following conditions is present. This includes similar adjudication in juvenile proceedings: 1) A punitive discharge authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the MCM 2002, as amended; 2) The sentence by civil authorities includes confinement for 6 months or more, without regard to suspension or probation. Adjudication in juvenile proceedings includes adjudication as a juvenile delinquent, wayward minor, or youthful offender; Initiation of separation action is not mandatory. Although the conditions established in a (1) or (2), above, are present, the immediate commander must also consider whether the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation. If the immediate commander initiates separation action, the case will be processed through the chain of command to the separation authority for appropriate action. A Soldier convicted by a civil court or adjudged a juvenile offender by a civil court will be reduced or considered for reduction. (8) 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. 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 “JKB” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, section II, misconduct (civil conviction). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1 defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions) and a narrative reason change, a separation code change, and a reentry code change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of the complete specific 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 not authenticated with the applicant’s electronic signature. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, SEC II, by reason of Misconduct (Civil Conviction), with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates a Soldier may be separated when initially convicted by civil authorities, or when action is taken tantamount to a finding of guilty, if a punitive discharge authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts Martial or the sentence by civil authorities includes confinement for six months or more, without regard to suspension or probation. At the time of the applicant’s discharge, the applicant’s status as to confinement by civilian authorities was not available. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, Section II, AR 635-200 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Civil Conviction),” and the separation code is “JKB.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. The SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. The SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14, SEC II, is “JKB.” The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “3.” There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends the Board should review and determine whether the discharge was properly based on the standards of equity and propriety, and to consider the fact the applicant was denied due process when appeared before an administrative separation board without the benefit of an effective representation. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain or is void of any evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the Board should consider the diagnosed mental health conditions were related to and presented after the deployment to Afghanistan, which exacerbated a few previously undiagnosed mental health conditions to include childhood PTSD and trauma. The applicant provided a detailed mental health assessment, dated 7 December 2018, conducted as part of the Federal court process, a requisite for sentencing in a federal court, which assessed the applicant on 6 and 7 December 2018, provided a detailed diagnoses of an “Unspecified Dissociative Disorder”; “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Dissociative Subtype”; “Major Depressive Disorder, Severe; Generalized Anxiety Disorder”; and “Alcohol Use Disorder.” The AMHRR is void of any in-service mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the Board should consider the list of achievements, including a deployment, the applicant earned a Master’s degree despite struggling through mental health conditions and while on active duty and facing serious legal issues. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends obtaining employment. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in- service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. The third-party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant character. It recognizes the applicant’s good conduct after leaving the Army. 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: Army: Adjustment DO with anxiety; Adjustment DO with disturbance of conduct; Adjustment DO, unspecified. Civilian: Unspecified Dissociative Disorder; PTSD (from childhood abuse); Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Alcohol Use Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the diagnosis of Adjustment DO was made when the applicant was on active duty. Civilian medical documentation asserts applicant suffered from Unspecified Dissociative Disorder; PTSD (from childhood abuse); MDD; GAD while on active duty. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there are no mitigating BH conditions. While the applicant has been diagnosed by the Army with Adjustment DO and by a civilian BH provider with Unspecified Dissociative DO, PTSD (from childhood abuse), MDD and GAD, none of these conditions mitigates viewing and possessing child pornography as none of these conditions affect 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. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason and the SPD code for the discharge needs to be changed. The SPD codes identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty, and administratively linked to the reason for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable, and the SPD code and narrative reason are consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. (2) The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The Board voted not to change the RE-code 3, which is a waivable code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. The Board determined recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes, if appropriate. (3) The applicant contends the Board should consider the diagnosed mental health conditions were related to and presented after the deployment to Afghanistan, which exacerbated a few previously undiagnosed mental health conditions to include childhood PTSD and trauma. The Board determined this contention was valid after review of the applicant's DOD and VA health records. It revealed the applicant was diagnosed in service with Adjustment DO with anxiety, Adjustment DO with disturbance of conduct, Adjustment DO (unspecified), Unspecified Dissociative Disorder, PTSD (from childhood abuse), Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Alcohol Use Disorder. However, none of the BH diagnoses mitigates viewing and possessing child pornography. Therefore, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends the Board should consider the list of achievements, including a deployment, the applicant earned a Master’s degree despite struggling through mental health conditions and while on active duty and facing serious legal issues. The Board determined the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant's service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit to the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By viewing and possessing child pornography, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (5) The applicant contends obtaining an employment. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, no law or regulation provides an unfavorable discharge that must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board may consider the outstanding post-service conduct and the applicant’s performance and conduct during the service under review during proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate that previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. In this case, the Board decided the discharge was proper and equitable. c. The Board determined the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s BH diagnoses did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of viewing and possessing child pornography. 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, 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 AR20220006144 1