AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2017-00433	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 25 Aug 14 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge for Misconduct (Serious Offense).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to General or Honorable and a change to his discharge narrative reason.  The board was conducted on 12 Jul 18.  

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), but declined and requested the board be completed based on a records only review.  The applicant was represented by counsel.    

Pursuant to 10 USC §1553, the board included a member who is a 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 unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to General or Honorable and to change his discharge narrative reason.  It also voted not to change his 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, three Letters of Reprimand, and one Record of Individual Counseling.  His misconduct included:  violating a no-contact order, aggravated sexual contact with a child under 12, physically abusing his wife, failure to obtain required scores on the Defense Language Proficiency Test (x2), and failing a fitness assessment.  
 
Due to evidence of multiple mental health diagnoses 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 improper because it was based on an allegation of sexual assault against his daughter that was later withdrawn.  He believed there was a conflict of interest with the discharge authority since the same commander who was advised there was not enough evidence to refer the charges against him to a general court-martial then had to decide whether to administratively discharge him.  The applicant believed that once the charges were dismissed, he should not have been involuntarily separated since he had between 18 and 20 years of active duty service and was in sanctuary status.  

The DRB noted the applicant's lengthy service and strong duty performance as documented by his performance reports, awards and decorations, and other accomplishments.  However, it 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 DRB found the seriousness of the applicant’s willful misconduct was a significant departure from the conduct expected of all military members and offset the positive aspects of his many years of service. 

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

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 30 Aug 18.  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