AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2021-00566	
					
SUMMARY: 
The applicant was discharged on 4 October 2013 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General Discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions). The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization.  The Board was conducted on 1 February 2022.

The applicant was represented by counsel.    

The applicant requested the board be completed based on a records only review.

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. 

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 multiple Article 15s, multiple Letters of Reprimand, and a Letter of Counseling.  His misconduct included:  impeding an OSI investigation by communicating information to others for which he was a confidential source; absented himself from his place of duty; failed to declassify a Secret document prior to posting it on an unclassified shared drive; failed to report to appointed place of duty on time; disrespected a SNCO by questioning their authority to interview him; while demonstrating drinking water from canteen while in MOPP 4, deceived an exercise evaluator when asked if he was getting water; failed to report to appointed place of duty; willfully failed to report to appointed place of duty on time;  and neglected to follow procedures which resulted in  missing a deployment tasking. 

The applicant and counsel contended that when considering the member’s military service as well as post service conduct, continued injury from his discharge is unwarranted and disproportionate to the conduct that resulted in his separation. They explained that as a young Airman, he struggled with adjusting to the military lifestyle. Additionally, because English was his second language, he struggled with the language barrier and occasionally misunderstood instructions. The applicant and counsel also contended that his mental health significantly impacted and contributed to the circumstances resulting in several administrative actions. Specifically, he served as a confidential informant to OSI because his friends were participating in illegal activities. The member stated that after months of operations, it took a toll on him and so he shared the information about the investigation to his friends because he just needed someone to vent to.  

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 that the applicant felt that the discharge was disproportionate to the conduct that resulted in his separation. However, it is the pattern of misconduct that eventually led to the separation. The DRB noted verbiage directly from several disciplinary documents that the member continued to repeat infractions, even after verbal and formal counseling. The Board determined that, through the administrative actions taken by the chain of command, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The discharge receive by the applicant was deemed to be appropriate. 

LIBERAL CONSIDERATION:

Due to evidence of a mental health condition found in the applicant’s medical record, the Board considered the case based on the liberal consideration (LC) standards required by guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and 10 USC §1553.  The Board included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  Specifically, the Board reviewed the four questions the Under Secretary of Defense provided that boards should consider when weighing evidence in requests for modification of discharges due in whole or in part to mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI); sexual assault, and sexual harassment.  The Board considered the following: 

1. Did the veteran have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
The applicant, through counsel, contended “as a new Airman, Applicant struggled with adjusting to the military lifestyle.”  The applicant, through counsel, also contended “Applicant’s mental health was also significantly impacted by the stressors of serving as a confidential informant to OSI.” There is evidence the applicant sought and received mental health treatment in service.  

2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 
There is evidence the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with anxious mood and Antisocial Personality traits in service (2012). Upon review of the available records, there is no evidence the applicant’s symptoms were ever assessed to be above a “non-clinical level of distress”. There is no evidence the applicant ever endorsed any distress symptoms on the mental health screeners or during any of his seven sessions with the mental health provider. 

3. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
The applicant was discharged due to misconduct. The applicant did not submit any evidence, records, or testimony to substantiate his claim that his mental health condition caused his misconduct, thus his condition does not mitigate nor excuse his discharge. 

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 
Since the applicant’s condition does not mitigate or excuse the discharge, it does not outweigh the discharge. No error or injustice was found in the discharge processing. 

Additionally, the Board considered the factors laid out in the attachment to the Under Secretary of Defense memorandum, Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations, dated 25 June 2018, known as the “Wilkie Memo.”  The Board considered the factors listed in paragraphs (6)(a)-(6)(l) of this memorandum, and concluded the following with regard to this applicable factor: 

(6)(a).  It is consistent with military custom and practice to honor sacrifices and achievements, to punish only to the extent necessary, to rehabilitate to the greatest extent possible, and to favor second chances in situations in which individuals have paid for their misdeeds. 
In this case, the applicant was given opportunities for rehabilitation while in service, however, the pattern of misconduct continued. The board felt that a General discharge was appropriate for the conduct that resulted in this member’s discharge. 

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable, to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority, and to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 2C or 3K.
 
CONCLUSION:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service, service/medical record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was proper. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain “General”, the narrative reason for separation shall remain Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the reentry code shall remain 2B. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 8 February 2022.  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  
Instructions on how to appeal an AFDRB decision can be found at 
https://afrbaportal.azurewebsites.us

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief (Applicant Only)