AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2020-00227	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 14 Jul 2005 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable, a change to the discharge narrative reason, re-instatement of his GI Bill, compensation for early separation, compensation towards education bills, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility and separation designation codes.  

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference using VIDYO Cloud Connect between Joint Base Andrews, MD, and applicant’s home address on 4 Aug 2020.  No witnesses were present and testified on the applicant’s behalf.  The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:  legal review from administrative discharge, AF 1168 statements, letter to congress member, letter of response from SAF/LL, USAF force shaping article, appeal of non-judicial punishment, driving history record and statement, "random" urinalysis testing, Embry-Riddle transcript from in-service voluntary additional higher education, letters of appreciation / character reference letters, Montgomery GI Bill DD form 2366, DD form 214, Post-9/11 GI Bill claim denial, notice of homelessness, letter from compensated work therapy transitional work programming at VA medical center, post discharge college withdrawals/leave of absence documents, progress note from primary care provider, original disability award letter for service connected depression disorder, and student loan balance.

Pursuant to 10 USC §1553, the board included a member who is a psychiatrist/ psychologist 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 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, two Letters of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseling.  His misconduct included:  failure to obey an order by an officer, failed to be cooperative with security forces, failed to obey basic traffic/parking laws, and received three traffic violations in the past 8 months. 

Due to evidence of a mental health condition/s found in the applicant’s medical record, 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/or 10 USC §1553.

The applicant contended the discharge was inequitable/improper because his discharge consisted of errors of fact and discretion which was prejudicial to his discharge process. He contends his discharge was inequitable as his quality of service and capability to serve did not warrant a General Discharge. 

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. The board concluded the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions he made during his Air Force career.    

The applicant cited his desire to receive G.I. Bill benefits as justification for an upgrade to the service characterization.  The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.  The board understood the applicant’s present service characterization renders him ineligible for Department of Veteran Affair’s education benefits.  However, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.  

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

If the applicant can provide additional information to substantiate his contentions, the board recommends he exercise the right to appeal the DRB’s decision to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.    

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 5 Aug 20.  If desired, the applicant can request a list of the board members and their votes by writing to:  

Air Force Review Boards Agency
Attn: Discharge Review Board
3351 Celmers Lane
Joint Base Andrews, NAF Washington, MD 20762-6602  

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief (Applicant Only)