AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00426	

GENERAL: The applicant was discharged on 30 Nov 11 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions). The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.  The board was conducted on 30 Nov 17.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), but declined and requested the board be completed based on a records only review. The applicant was represented by counsel,

Pursuant to 10 USC §1553, the board included a member who is a clinical psychiatrist with training on mental health issues connected with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI), and training on mental health disorders.

The attached examiner’s brief (provided to applicant only), extracted from available service records, contains pertinent data regarding the circumstances and character of the applicant’s military service.

FINDING: The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable, to change the discharge narrative reason, and to change the reenlistment eligibility code.

DISCUSSION: The DRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the characterization of service and the reason for discharge if such changes are warranted. If applicable, the board can also change the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility code. In reviewing discharges, the board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the applicant. The board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to determine if the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.

The applicant’s record of service included one Article 15 and four Letters of Reprimand (LORs). His misconduct included: being derelict in the performance of his duties, making a false official statement to a noncommissioned officer, making a false official statement to a senior noncommissioned officer, making a false official statement to an officer, failure to get a haircut, conducting personal matters during duty hours, and failure to clean a temporary lodging facility upon checking out.

The applicant contended his discharge should have been processed as a dual action case and he should have received a medical discharge due to his mental health condition. He claimed the discharge was inequitable because his diagnosis of adjustment disorder was not considered at the time of discharge. He claimed the discharge was improper because his inability to maintain the cleanliness of his living space was a telltale sign of mental illness that was ignored. He also contended it was improper because he was denied the right to counsel, due to his inability to make contact with the Area Defense Counsel (ADC) prior to responding to one of his LORs.

The DRB acknowledged the applicant’s mental health diagnosis of adjustment disorder, but noted it did not make him unfit for continued military service. Therefore, his separation would not have been processed as a dual action case.  The board also concluded his mental health condition did not mitigate his multiple incidents of misconduct, specifically the three instances in which he made false official statements.  The DRB determined that, through the administrative actions taken by the chain of command in this case, the	

applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior but failed to do so. If the applicant was not able to obtain ADC assistance as contended, it is unfortunate. However, the board concluded this was not a significant enough issue to rise to the level of making the discharge improper.

After a thorough review of the service record and inputs from the board’s psychiatrist, the DRB found no conclusive indication that any mental health issues had a direct impact on the applicant's misconduct or discharge.

CONCLUSION: The board found insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant’s discharge. Therefore, the discharge received by the applicant was deemed to be appropriate and his request was not approved.

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 7 Dec 17. If desired, the applicant can request a list of the board members and their votes by writing to: SAF/MRBR (CITU), 550-C Street West, Suite 41, Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4743.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief