AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2019-00022	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 9 May 13 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Honorable discharge for Unsatisfactory Performance.  The applicant appealed for a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.  The board was conducted on 19 Mar 2020.  

The applicant initially chose to have a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), but due to lack of response/s from the applicant in regards to scheduling the appearance, the President of the AFDRB authorized to complete its review of the discharge, per DOD 1332.8, E3.2.6.2.  The applicant did not have a prior records only review, therefore, the board deemed him eligible for one.  

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 approve the applicant’s request to change the narrative reason to Secretarial Authority.  However, the DRB voted 4 to 1 to deny the applicant’s request to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 3K.

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 did not include any disciplinary actions.

The applicant contended the narrative reason and reenlistment eligibility code are inequitable because he was discharged due to a physical injury sustained while in technical training.  The applicant believes the narrative reason inappropriately characterizes his circumstance, and insists that his performance in training was not the reason for discharge.  He is requesting the change to the reenlistment eligibility code in order to return to military service.

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire record and found the recommendation for discharge was based on an examination from a military physician that determined his level of pain prevented the completion of training.  The physician also noted the applicant’s condition did not qualify as a disability under AFI 36-3212 and was therefore ineligible for Medical Evaluation Board processing.  The DRB found evidence of an impropriety due to an error in procedure.  The DRB determined the AFI reference that established the narrative reason is improper because it is used for involuntary separations due to disciplinary actions instead of medical reasons.  The board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant any change to the reenlistment eligibility code.  The board concluded that due to impropriety, relief for the narrative reason is warranted. 

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 neither the evidence of record, nor that provided by the applicant substantiated any inequity.  However, sufficient evidence existed to convince the board the discharge was improper.  Therefore, the board determined the discharge narrative reason was more accurately described as “Secretarial Authority.”  The board did not change the discharge narrative reason or the reenlistment eligibility code.    

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 27 Apr 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)