AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2019-00698	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 23 Nov 17 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Honorable discharge for Personality Disorder.  The applicant appealed for a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.  The board was conducted on 19 Mar 20.  

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 not 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 approve to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority.  However, the DRB voted unanimously 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 included two Letter of Counseling.  His misconduct included: dereliction of duty; and without authority, left duty section. 

Due to evidence of a mental health condition 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 reenlistment eligibility code was inequitable because he was misdiagnosed by a military mental health physician, and not afforded the option of a second opinion.  The applicant insists that a diagnosis was made after a single eight-hour session with the mental health provider.  The applicant states that as a result of the misdiagnosis he was denied the opportunity to have his training validated, thus denied the opportunity to demonstrate improvements in his performance.  The applicant states that he received a second opinion from a civilian provider after the discharge.  He insists that was conducted over the course of two months and the resulted in the personality disorder being revoked.  The applicant 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 did not find evidence of impropriety or inequity to change the reenlistment eligibility code.  However, per guidance from the Department of Defense, the narrative reason should be changed when the original narrative reason was Adjustment/Personality Disorder and there were no aggravating factors in the record, such as misconduct.  The board determined the applicant’s current narrative reason of Personality Disorder met the criteria and, therefore approved the change the narrative reason.  

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 the applicant's misconduct, however, it could not completely explain or excuse the diagnosis sufficiently to warrant the change of reenlistment eligibility code.

CONCLUSION:  The board determined the applicant’s narrative reason was improper based the DoD guidance.  Therefore, it determined t the discharge narrative reason should be “Secretarial Authority.”

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 23 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)