AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	CASE NUMBER

FD-2017-00601	

GENERAL: The applicant was discharged on 1 Jul 16 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Serious Offense). The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge characterization to Honorable, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Joint Base Andrews, MD, on 7 Nov 17.  No witnesses were present or testified on the applicant’s behalf.

**The following additional exhibit was submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5:  Additional documents

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 3 to 2 to approve the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge characterization to Honorable. It also voted to change the discharge narrative reason to “Misconduct (Minor Infractions)” and to change the reenlistment eligibility code to “2C.”

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, one Letter of Counseling, and one Record of Individual Counseling. Her misconduct included: assaulting two Senior Noncommissioned Officers (SNCOs), failure to involve leadership in the processing of her reenlistment, and disrespectful conduct while speaking with her flight chief.

Due to evidence of a mental health diagnosis, the board considered the case based on the liberal consideration standard required by guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.

The applicant contended the discharge was improper because the discharge narrative reason was too harsh and should reflect “Secretarial Authority” instead. The applicant apologized for her actions, but maintained she did not intentionally assault the two SNCOs. She contended the command disregarded her mental health diagnosis for adjustment disorder and administratively discharged her instead of allowing her to separate voluntarily. The applicant believed an isolated incident should not override her otherwise honorable military service.

Based upon a thorough review of the applicant’s service record and her personal testimony, the board did not	

find evidence of impropriety in the discharge process. However, the board majority concluded the discharge was inequitable. It determined relief was warranted based on the applicant’s personal problems, which significantly detracted from her capability to serve satisfactorily. More specifically, the majority concluded her documented mental health disorders were a mitigating factor in her incidents of misconduct. Therefore, the majority determined her service was more accurately reflected as Honorable. Additionally, the board determined the discharge narrative reason “Misconduct (Minor Infractions),” more appropriately describes the basis for the discharge.

After a thorough review of the service record and inputs from the board’s psychiatrist, the DRB found it likely that her mental health conditions had a direct impact on the applicant's misconduct and discharge.

CONCLUSION: The board found neither the evidence of record, nor that provided by the applicant substantiated an impropriety. However, sufficient evidence existed to convince the board the discharge was inequitable. Therefore, the board determined the overall characterization of the applicant’s service was more accurately reflected as Honorable and the discharge narrative reason is more accurately described as “Misconduct (Minor Disciplinary Infractions).”  Additionally, the reenlistment eligibility code was changed to “2C.”

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