RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2020-01645

XXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

She has exhausted all avenues of appeal through submission to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) in Jan 05.  New information has surfaced with her diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in 2013.  She requests liberal consideration be used while reviewing her case, based on the Hagel Memo.  She further petitions for clemency.  She received a general discharge due to inequitable and improper reasons.  She was subjected to frequent instances of micro-aggressions regarding her race and gender, leading to hostilities such as harassment and gender discrimination, creating a hostile work environment.  She started receiving numerous disciplinary actions, some for minor actions.  The continued harassment and disparate treatment she received caused emotional and psychological turmoil, which eventually led to her diagnosis of PTSD. 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former airman basic (E-1) in the Regular Air Force.  

On 4 Mar 04, the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment in violation of Articles 86 and 92, Uniformed Code of Military Justice, for one count of departing her appointed place of duty, and one count of willfully failing to refrain from possessing alcohol in her dormitory.  She was reduced in grade from airman first class (E-3) to airman basic, with a new date of rank of 10 Mar 04, restricted to base for 45 days, 30 days extra duty, and reprimanded.

On 1 Jun 04, the applicant’s commander recommended she be discharged from the Air Force, under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations, and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Paragraph 5.49., for Misconduct: Minor Disciplinary Infractions.

On 3 Jun 04, the applicant submitted a statement for the discharge authority’s consideration.  

On 9 Jun 04, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge action legally sufficient, and recommended the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service.  The discharge authority approved the recommendation on 10 Jun 04.  

On 22 Jun 04, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with 2 years, 1 months and 29 days of active service.  Her separation code and narrative reason for discharge is JKN (Misconduct).

On 11 Jan 05, the applicant submitted an application to the AFDRB requesting her discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

On 28 Apr 05, the AFDRB considered and denied the applicant’s appeal to upgrade her discharge to honorable.  The AFDRB concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY

On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum providing guidance to military correction boards regarding liberal consideration for Vietnam veterans claiming PTSD.  In addition, time limits to reconsider decisions would be liberally waived for applications covered by this guidance. 

Subsequent guidance expanded liberal consideration protections to include all veterans who requested a modification of their discharge, to include character of service, narrative reason for discharge and reenlistment code, due in whole or in part to any mental health condition rather than just PTSD or Traumatic Brain Injury, and included those veterans who were victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment.  Liberal consideration would be given to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on the aforementioned conditions.

Under Consideration of Mitigating Factors, it is noted that PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct.  Liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade.  Relief may be appropriate, however, for minor misconduct commonly associated with the aforementioned mental health conditions and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances.

Boards are directed to consider the following main questions when assessing requests due to mental health conditions including PTSD, TBI, sexual assault, or sexual harassment:

a. Did the veteran have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge?
b. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service?
c. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
d. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge?

The entire guidance can be found at Exhibit B.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

BCMR Psychological Advisor recommends granting the application.  A review of the applicant’s military records revealed she engaged in patterns of misconduct during her time in service.  The applicant had submitted multiple personal statements in response to disciplinary action, but there was no mental health conditions or issues reported.  She instead, provided explanations for her misconduct, that they were the results of misunderstandings, she was unjustly accused of the misconduct, or she apologized and took responsibilities for her actions.  There was no comments or reports from her chain of command of any mental health conditions observed, or concerns of the applicant’s mental health condition.  The applicant was seen at the Life Skills Support Center (LSSC)/mental health clinic while in service.  She was administered psychological testing; however, the review and analysis were not available for review.  She was referred to attend anger management groups starting on 5 Mar 04 and attended groups until 2 Apr 04.  It was unclear if she completed the 5-session anger management groups.  Her treatment notes were vague and there was no report of any depression, anxiety, sleep issues or emotional distress, and her mental health status exams were consistently reported as normal or within normal limits.  She was given no mental health diagnoses but conditions of Other Occupational Circumstances or Maladjustment and Marital and Partner Problems was annotated in her notes.  

After the applicant was discharged from service, she petitioned the AFDRB for an upgrade to Honorable.  She stated her service experience was not what she had expected after reaching her first duty station, and provided lengthy explanations of her misconduct.  She repeatedly reported she was treated unfairly and felt targeted.  The applicant first received mental health services from her local Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinic on 24 Apr 08 for complaints of depression caused by post service stressors such work stress, personal problems, and separation from her husband.  She received a diagnosis of Depression, Not Other-wise Specified.  She returned to treatment on 26 Jul 10 for having symptoms of anxiety and depression following a motor vehicle accident (MVA) and was given diagnoses of Acute Stress Disorder with Anxiety and Depression and Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood.  On 13 Nov 13, the applicant was evaluated for a Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination.  She was ultimately given a diagnosis of PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder.

The applicant contends she was racially discriminated against, sexually harassed, and unfairly treated while in service, causing her to develop emotional distress.  There was evidence to substantiate that she met with a psychologist in service.  Unfortunately, the content of her missing treatment notes could not be assessed in order to have a better understanding of her clinical presentation at the time.  There was no objective evidence in her military personnel records of any reported harassments; however, the applicant consistently reported she was one of two, or sometimes the only female in her shop with 40 other men in which she felt “intensely ostracized and alone”.  Being in a situation like this may cause one to feel unsafe and be discouraged to make any reports or complaints.  There was no clear explanation from the applicant about how her mental health condition mitigated her misconduct, and she admitted having difficulties articulating her experience.  However, the VA opined there were behavioral markers in service that could support she experienced military sexual trauma/harassment, in service, leading to her develop PTSD at a later time.  Giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt and accepting the opinion of the VA, these experiences may cause poor judgments/decision making skills, poor insight, impulsivity, and anger issues.  This may assist in explaining at least some of her behaviors and misconduct leading to her discharge from service.  Recommend upgrading the applicant’s discharge to honorable based on liberal consideration, and changing her narrative reason for discharge to “Secretarial Authority”, due to her mental health condition having mitigated her misconduct, leading to her discharge from service.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 29 Sep 20 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of the BCMR Psychological Advisory and finds a preponderance of the evidence substantiates the applicant’s contentions.  While the Board finds no error in the original discharge process, the Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of the BCMR Mental Health Advisor and recommends relief based on liberal consideration of the applicant’s claims of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a mitigating factor in the misconduct that contributed to her service characterization. Therefore, the Board recommends correcting the applicant’s records as indicated below.

RECOMMENDATION

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 22 Jun 04, she was honorably discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority,” and a separation code of “JFF.”

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2020-01645 in Executive Session on 18 Nov 20:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
	, Panel Member

All members voted to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 4 Feb 20.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, BCMR Psychological Advisory, dated 17 Sep 20.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 29 Sep 20.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.