AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2019-00515	
					
The applicant was discharged on 18 Feb 2011 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Drug Abuse).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable and a change to the discharge narrative reason.  The board was conducted on 16 Jun 2020.  The applicant was not represented by counsel.    

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference using VIDYO Cloud Connect between Joint Base Andrews, MD, and the applicant’s location on 16 Jun 2020.  No witnesses were present and testified on the applicant’s behalf.  

Pursuant to 10 USC §1553, the board included a member who is a psychiatrist/ psychologist 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 3 to 2 to approve the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable and to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority.  

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.  

Due to evidence of  post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 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 inequitable and improper due to his involvement with OSI as a Confidential Source (CS).  He claims proper measures were not taken by OSI or his command to ensure his safety which led him to self-medicate with “Spice” to control his anxiety.  He has been diagnosed with PTSD post discharge and is requesting liberal consideration be given to his review.  A review of the military record indicated the applicant reported to OSI that he had witnessed other Airmen in his unit using drugs, leading to OSI recruiting him as a CS during multiple investigations.  During these investigations the applicant bought drugs from several different Airmen under OSI authority and he was also paid by the Air Force for his services as a CS.  He eventually was moved out of his work center for safety purposes after testifying at multiple court-martials, but was later returned to his unit where he felt threatened for his involvement in the investigations.  He claims he started self-medicating with alcohol and sleeping pills to cope with his fear and anxiety of being back in the unit and eventually started using Spice.  He was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for violating Article 112a, UCMJ, and discharged for drug abuse.  Since his discharge the applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD.  Therefore, the Board determined there was sufficient evidence in his records to corroborate the applicant’s contention that he reported using “Spice” to cope with anxiety and undiagnosed PTSD.  

CONCLUSION:  The board found neither the evidence of record, nor that provided by the applicant substantiated an impropriety.  However, sufficient evidence existed to convince the board the discharge was inequitable, as the Board opined there is compelling evidence that the applicant’s misconduct can be directly correlated to his diagnosis.  Therefore, the board determined the overall characterization of the applicant’s service was more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the discharge narrative reason was more accurately described as “Secretarial Authority.”   The board did not change the reenlistment eligibility code.    

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 22 Jun 2020.  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)