AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2016-00478	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 22 Jul 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.  

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel (Mr. Daniel Conway), at Joint Base Andrews, MD, on 19 Oct 17.  A witness (the applicant’s spouse) was present and testified on the applicant’s behalf.  No additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing.

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.

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 narrative 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, four Letters of Reprimand, and two Letters of Counseling.  His misconduct included:  failure to go to his appointed place of duty, failure to report to work or his scheduled place of duty on time (x4), failure to provide financial support to his spouse while living separately prior to their divorce, failure to notify finance personnel that his spouse had returned to the continental United States, failure to pay a debt, and failure to remain current on rent payments for his off-base residence.     

Since the applicant’s request for relief was based in part on matters relating to both post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI), the board considered the case based on the liberal consideration standards required by guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and 10 USC §1553.

The applicant contended the discharge was inequitable due to a number of reasons.  He stated he did not receive adequate support from his chain of command and disciplinary actions were taken by his new squadron commander, who was not in command when the misconduct occurred.  He noted his misconduct was comprised of minor infractions and all occurred after he was suffering from PTSD and TBI.  He contended his Air Force medical providers failed to diagnose his TBI.  The applicant also claimed he should never have been considered for an administrative discharge due to the seriousness of his physical disabilities.  

The DRB noted that, despite the applicant’s claims, at least three incidents of his misconduct occurred prior to the automobile accident that led to his physical injuries.  The board also determined that some of his misconduct was intentional.  For example, his record indicated the applicant made a conscious decision not to report his spouse’s departure from Germany to Finance because he did not want to lose command sponsorship for her.  Despite the applicant’s claim that his misconduct was the result of his PTSD and TBI, the board noted there was no mention of PTSD or TBI anywhere in his record prior to his diagnosis by the Veterans Administration after his discharge.  Also, it appeared the applicant never sought treatment for any mental health issues while he was in the Air Force.  The board determined proper “dual action” processing procedures were followed at the time of the applicant’s discharge.  Despite the applicant’s contentions, the board was not able to establish a causal relationship between his medical conditions and pattern of misconduct.  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.  It concluded the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career. 

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 15 Nov 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