RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-00570

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: YES	

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

His mental illness was misdiagnosed by the Air Force while he was on active duty. 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

On 6 Nov 95, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.49, minor disciplinary infractions.  The specific reasons for the action were:

a.	On or about (o/a) 1 Oct 94, he used his official US Government American Express Corporate Card (AMEX) for non-official expenses.  As a result, he was issued a letter of reprimand.

b.	O/a 10 Feb 95, with the intent to deceive, he made an official statement that payments on his AMEX account where made.  As a result, he was issued nonjudicial punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with suspended reduction to the grade of airman (E-2) and a reprimand.

c.	Between o/a 15 Feb 95 and o/a 14 Apr 95, he dishonorably failed to pay his AMEX debt. As a result, his suspended punishment was vacated and he was reduced to the grade of airman.

d.	O/a 12 Sep 95, he was absent without leave in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  As a result, he was issued nonjudicial punishment pursuant to Article 15, UCMJ and reduced to the grade of airman basic (E-1).
	
On 7 Nov 95, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge action legally sufficient.

On 8 Nov 95, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged for minor disciplinary infractions, with an under honorable conditions service characterization.  Probation and rehabilitation were not offered.

On 14 Nov 95, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct.”  He was credited with 3 years, 2 months, and 20 days of active service.

On 20 Jan 06, the applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade to his discharge.

On 22 Sep 06, 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 D.

POST-SERVICE INFORMATION

On 19 Mar 21, the Board sent the applicant a request for post-service information, including a standard criminal history report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); however, he has not replied.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

On 3 Sep 14, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum providing guidance to the Military Department Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records as they carefully consider each petition regarding discharge upgrade requests by veterans claiming PTSD.  In addition, time limits to reconsider decisions will be liberally waived for applications covered by this guidance.

On 25 Aug 17, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD P&R) issued clarifying guidance to Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records considering requests by veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to mental health conditions [PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual assault, or sexual harassment].  Liberal consideration will 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.  Correction Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the 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?

On 25 Jul 18, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD P&R) issued supplemental guidance to military corrections boards in determining whether relief is warranted based on equity, injustice, or clemency.  These standards authorize the board to grant relief in order to ensure fundamental fairness.  Clemency refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence and is a part of the broad authority Boards have to ensure fundamental fairness.  This guidance applies to more than clemency from sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds.  This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority.  Each case will be assessed on its own merits.  The relative weight of each principle and whether the principle supports relief in a particular case, are within the sound discretion of each Board.  In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, an injustice, or clemency grounds, the Board should refer to the supplemental guidance, paragraphs 6 and 7. 

On 19 Mar 21, the Board staff provided the applicant a copy of the liberal consideration guidance (Exhibit C).

AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, describes the types of service characterization: 

Honorable.  The quality of the airman’s service generally has met Air Force standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty or when a member's service is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. 

Under Honorable Conditions (General).  If an airman’s service has been honest and faithful, this characterization is warranted when significant negative aspects of the airman's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the airman's military record.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The AFRBA Psychological Advisor completed a review of all available records and finds insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s request for desired changes to his records.  There is no evidence a nexus had existed between the applicant’s mental health condition derived from his traumatic experience and his financial irresponsible behaviors, as most of these behaviors predated his traumatic experience and no evidence they caused his behaviors that occurred after his return from overseas.  The applicant also did not provide any clarifying information about how his mental health condition caused his misconduct leading to discharge from service.  There is no evidence the applicant experienced any mental health issues or concerns during service as he denied having any mental health issues on his separation physical.  The applicant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in 2019, 24 years post discharge, and began to receive mental health treatment for PTSD the same year.  Based on this extended lapse in time from discharge to diagnosis, he more likely than not may have experienced a delayed onset of PTSD and/or his symptoms were exacerbated or triggered by his post-service stressors.  There is no objective evidence supporting his condition of PTSD or any other mental health condition caused his behaviors and misconduct.  As a result, the psychological advisor finds no error or injustice with his discharge process from service.

The Board applied liberal consideration to the applicant’s request due to the contention of a mental health condition. The following are answers to the four pertinent questions from the policy based on the available records for review:  

1.	Did the veteran have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge?  The applicant contends he felt the Air Force misdiagnosed his mental illness while on active duty. He submitted paperwork from the DVA reporting he first experienced mental health trouble after his first tour from Iraq in 1995 and was diagnosed with PTSD in December 2019 caused by his traumatic experience (incoming fire) in Bahrain in 1995.

2.	Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service?  There are no objective records in his military file to corroborate any of the aforementioned reports in the submitted DVA document. His military records reported he was in Saudi Arabia and not Iraq or Bahrain in 1995 and no reports of any incoming fire experience. There is also no evidence he received any mental health evaluation, diagnosis, or treatment for PTSD or any other mental health conditions during military service.

3.	Does the condition or experience excuse or mitigate the discharge?  The applicant had demonstrated serious and recurring financial irresponsible behaviors and misconduct to include receiving an Article 15 and LOR that had existed prior to his alleged traumatic experiences. Most of his misconduct occurred prior to his overseas assignment. Therefore, his condition and experience do not excuse or mitigate his discharge.

4.	Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge?  Since there is no evidence his mental health condition or traumatic experience excuse or mitigate his discharge, they also do not outweigh his original discharge.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 7 Dec 21 for comment (Exhibit E) 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 not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale of the AFRBA Psychological Advisor and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Liberal consideration was applied to the applicant’s request due to the contention of a mental health condition; however, since there is no evidence his mental health condition had a direct impact on his behaviors and misconduct resulting with his discharge.  In the interest of justice, the Board considered upgrading the discharge based on fundamental fairness; however, given the evidence presented, and in the absence of post-service information and a criminal history report, the Board finds no basis to do so. Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.  The applicant retains the right to request reconsideration of this decision.  The applicant may provide post-service evidence depicting his good citizenship since his discharge, in the consideration for an upgrade of discharge characterization due to clemency based on fundamental fairness.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.
RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

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-2021-00570 in Executive Session on 26 Jan 22:

Panel Chair
Panel Member
Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 11 Sep 20.
Exhibit B:	Documentary Evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Letter, SAF/MRBC, w/atchs (Post-Service Request and Liberal Consideration  
                  Guidance), dated 19 Mar 21.
Exhibit D:	Advisory Opinion, AFBCMR Psychological Advisor, dated 24 May 21.
Exhibit E	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 7 Dec 21.

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.