AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2019-00203	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 04 Mar 13 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a(n) Honorable discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions).  The applicant appealed for a change to the discharge narrative reason and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.  The board was conducted on 12 Mar 20.  

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, via video teleconference using VIDYO Cloud Connect between Joint Base Andrews, MD, and applicant’s home address on 12 Mar 20.  No witnesses were present and/or testified on the applicant’s behalf.  No additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing..

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 u change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority and 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 included two Article 15’s for participating in the production of photographs of human casualties and assault/damage property.

Due to evidence of  post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) / a traumatic brain injury (TBI) / mental health condition/s 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 and counsel contends that the narrative reasoning and reenlistment code was inequitable.  They state that the discharge was too harsh due to applicant’s capability to serve satisfactorily.  His misconduct mitigated the discharge due to his PTSD and that it was inconsistent with the standards of discipline.  They contend that he had exemplary service and outstanding post-discharge conduct to have the narrative reason and reenlistment code upgraded.  The applicant believed he deserved a second chance despite his misconduct in order to have the opportunity to serve in the military again.  The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, awards and decorations, and other accomplishments. The board 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 board was also pleased to see the applicant has been successful since leaving the Air Force.  However, the board reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant any changes to the discharge.  It found the seriousness of the applicant’s willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of his service.  

Upon review of the applicant’s service record, the board was not able to find any documentation regarding the discharge.  Since the board relies on the presumption of regularity, it concluded the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.  

After a thorough review of the service record and input from the board’s psychiatrist, the DRB found that the applicant’s mental health condition was a mitigating factor to some of the applicant's misconduct, however, it could not completely explain or excuse the misconduct sufficiently to warrant upgrading the discharge.

If the applicant can provide additional information to substantiate his contentions, the board recommends he exercise the right to appeal the DRB’s decision to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.    

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 23 Mar 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)