1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 March 2022 b. Date Received: 8 March 2022 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 general (under honorable conditions) and a narrative reason, a separation code, and a reentry code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge stemmed from a prescribed medication, which induced a mental breakdown and helped end the career. While training at Fort Polk, the applicant was involved in a Humvee accident. Shortly after returning to Fort Drum, the applicant was scheduled to get married, who left the applicant five days before the wedding. The applicant, being young, became upset and emotional about the breakup. Because the applicant was young and just needed to learn how to get over a breakup, may have made a childish comment of ending life. The fiancé informed the command the applicant was an emotional mess and may be a threat to themself. The applicant was put in a mental hospital and prescribed several medications. This began the steep and fast downfall as the applicant, never receiving any reprimands, strived to be the best. The applicant was prepared to lead a team overseas. The applicant had planned to serve a career of 20-30 years and enlisted for eight years. The applicant cannot explain a lot of the actions after being placed on the medications and the memory seems a bit dazed. The applicant was no longer the same person prior to the medications. The command did not try to understand nor help, even after trying to explain the medications were affecting the ability to perform. Instead, the applicant was labeled a "Shitbag" and told to work or face a court-martial and jail time. If not for the medications, the applicant would still be in the Army. While in the mental hospital, the applicant's wall locker was cut, and all the personal items and military gear were stolen. Although the applicant filed a police report and a "FLIPL" was to be completed per the command, the applicant was forced to sign a form accepting full financial responsibility for the stolen gear. The command threatened jail again if the applicant did not sign the form. The applicant paid close to $10,000 dollars after leaving the Army. Those actions were not appropriate. The applicant, a government asset, was not properly taken care of or maintained. There was no option to stop the medication as the team's medic ensured the medications were taken several times a day by inspections of the mouth. It has taken a while for the applicant to forgive between being upset at how the command acted and allowing the events to ruin a career in the Army. Unfortunately, the applicant could have done more to save the career by going above the command, although the applicant was not sure of being mentally capable to do so. The "Patterns of Misconduct" were related to the effects of the medications. The separation code should be changed to temporary disability, including the reentry code to allow reentry if deciding to do so. The applicant further details the contentions in a self-authored statement provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 12 December 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh for the offenses. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 22 January 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 January 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 4 November, and 13, 16, 26 and October 2009, the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty. On 17 October 2009, without authority, the applicant was absent from the place of duty and remained absent until 19 October 2009. On 27 October 2009, the applicant behaved with disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer. On 27 October 2009, the applicant, having received a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer, to get out of bed, put on PT uniform, and get to formation, or words to that effect, willfully disobeyed the same. On 16 October 2009, the applicant was disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer, who was then in the execution of the office, by saying, "Fuck that," or words to that effect. On 16 October 2009, the applicant, having received a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer, to go to the barracks and change into the PT uniform, an order which was the applicant's duty to obey, willfully disobeyed the same. On 5 November 2009, the applicant, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Captain J. J. K., to wit: Memorandum, Conditions on Liberty, dated 23 October 2009, an order which was the applicant's duty to obey, failed to obey the same by wrongfully failing to sign in the barracks CQ log. On 19 October 2009, the applicant was derelict in the performance of the duties by willfully failing to put on PT uniforms or get into ACUs. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 January 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 12 January 2010, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board as part of an Offer to Plead Guilty in a Summary Court-Martial proceedings. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 January 2010 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 February 2009 / 6 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / GED / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 11B10, Infantryman / 11 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms for various acts of misconduct. Two Personnel Action forms reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)," to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 17 October 2009, and from "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 19 October 2009. Serious Incident Report, dated 20 October 2009, reflect the applicant being transferred to a Mental Health facility after an AWOL period and after being apprehended by civil authorities and transferred to military authorities. Report of Result of Trial and a Record of Trial reflect the applicant was tried in a Summary Court-Martial on 11 December 2009. The applicant was charged with five charges. The summary of offenses, pleas, and findings: Charge I: Violation of Article 86, UCMJ, Failure to report: Specification 1: On 4 November 2009; guilty consistent with the plea; Specification 2: On 27 October 2009; guilty, consistent with the plea; Specification 3: On 26 October 2009; guilty consistent with the plea; Specification 4: On 17 October 2009; guilty, consistent with the plea; Specification 5: On 16 October 2009; guilty, consistent with the plea; and Specification 6: On 13 October 2009; guilty, consistent with the plea. Charge II: Violation of Article 89, UCMJ, Disrespect toward a commissioned officer on 27 October 2009: guilty, consistent with the plea. Charge III: Violation of Article 90, UCMJ, Disobeying a commissioned officer on 27 October 2009: guilty, consistent with the plea. Charge IV: Violation of Article 91, UCMJ, Disrespect and Disobeying a noncommissioned officer: On 16 October 2009; guilty, consistent with the plea; and On 16 October 2009; guilty, consistent with the plea. Charge V: Violation of Article 92, Disobey lawful written order and Dereliction: On 23 October 2009; guilty, consistent with the plea; and On 19 October 2009; guilty, consistent with the plea. Sentence: Reduction to Private E-1; forfeiture $933 pay and confinement for 21 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 3 days (AWOL, 17 October 2009 - 19 October 2009) / The applicant returned to military control. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical Examination, dated 9 October 2009, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Continued Behavioral Health treatment until stable. Report of Medical History, dated 2 December 2009, the applicant noted several behavioral health issues. Mental Status Evaluation, dated 7 January 2010, reflects the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with a clear-thinking process. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct and Personality Disorder NOS. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; Report of Medical History; and two counseling forms, dated 27 and 23 October 2009. 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. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Paragraph 3-7c states Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (6) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. (7) Paragraph 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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-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 Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Pattern of Misconduct," and the separation code is "JKA." 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 exactly 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, paragraph 14-12b, is "JKA." 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 601-210, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of "4." An RE code of "4" cannot be waived, and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The applicant contends the discharge stemmed from a prescribed medication inducing a mental breakdown and the "Patterns of Misconduct" were related to the effects of the medications. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did not submit sufficient evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 7 January 2010, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE reflects diagnoses of an "Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct" and "Personality Disorder NOS." The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends breaking up with a fiancé affected behavior, which contributed to the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends being young at the time and becoming upset and emotional about a breakup, and just needing to learn how to get over a breakup. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends never receiving any reprimands and striving to be the best while planning to serve in the Army with a career of 20 to 30 years. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends the command did not try to understand or help, even after explaining the medications were affecting the ability of the applicant to perform. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends having to pay close to ten thousand dollars for the equipment stolen from a wall locker while the applicant was in the hospital, although the applicant filed a police report and a "FLIPL" was to be completed per the command, the applicant was forced to sign a form accepting full responsibility. The issue the applicant submitted is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge. The issue raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge when it was issued. The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons and to change the reason for discharge to medical or temporary disability. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. 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. 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 Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct and Personality Disorder not otherwise stated. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found these diagnoses were made while applicant was on active duty. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there are no mitigating BH conditions. While the applicant has been diagnosed with Adjustment DO and Borderline PD, neither of these conditions mitigates any of the misconduct as neither condition affects one's ability to understand the difference between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board's application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's conditions outweighed the basis for applicant's separation - FTR, AWOL, Disobedience/Disrespect, Dereliction of duty - for the aforementioned reason(s) b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason/SPD for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that no change to the narrative reason or accompanying SPD code is warranted. The applicant's lengthy and documented misconduct - FTR, AWOL, Disobedience/Disrespect, Dereliction of duty - shows an obvious Pattern of Misconduct and there is no evidence in official records or presented by the applicant of the command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (2) The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The Board considered this contention and determined that the lengthy misconduct all occurring within a month of enlistment exhibits an unclear potential for service. The Board voted to maintain the RE-code to a RE-3, which is a waivable 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. (3) The applicant contends the discharge stemmed from a prescribed medication inducing a mental breakdown and the "Patterns of Misconduct" were related to the effects of the medications. The Board considered this contention and the Board's medical advisor reviewed medical records and considered the applicant's contention. The Board voted that the applicant's medication and conditions were not mitigating, but that the characterization was too harsh for the offenses and applicant's time in service; thus, partial relief is warranted. (4) The applicant contends breaking up with a fiancé affected behavior, which contributed to the discharge. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with family issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant's detailed misconduct is not an acceptable response to dealing with these issues, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged (5) The applicant contends being young at the time and becoming upset and emotional about a breakup, and just needing to learn how to get over a breakup. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not excuse the misconduct. There is insufficient evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant's discharge was too harsh, thus warranting partial relief, but the list of document offenses did not raise the applicant's service to an Honorable level. (6) The applicant contends never receiving any reprimands and striving to be the best while planning to serve as a career and command did not try to understand or help the applicant. The Board considered this contention and determined that the evidence of record discredits the contention. There are numerous counseling statements for the applicant's misconduct, which showed the applicant's command attempting to rehabilitate the applicant into a functional servicemember, but the applicant was unable to adjust properly. (7) The applicant contends having to pay close to $10,000 for the equipment stolen from a wall locker while the applicant was in the hospital, although the applicant filed a police report and a "FLIPL" was to be completed per the command, the applicant was forced to sign a form accepting full responsibility. The Board considered this contention non-persuasive during its deliberations, since the contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge. The issue raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge when it was issued. (8) The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons and to change the reason for discharge to medical or temporary disability. The Board considered this contention and determined there is no evidence in the applicant's official record nor provided by the applicant that the applicant was in the medical discharge process or qualified to be. Specifically the note from a 6 January 2010 BH encounter indicated applicant was doing well and the applicant was discharged with no military duty restrictions. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh for the offenses. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions because the characterization was too harsh for the offenses of FTR, AWOL, Disobedience/Disrespect, Dereliction of duty. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code due to the lengthy and documented misconduct - FTR, AWOL, Disobedience/Disrespect, Dereliction of duty - showing an obvious Pattern of Misconduct; thus, 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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions 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 AR20220007022 1