AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2019-00793	
					
The applicant was discharged on 26 Oct 2004 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Pattern of Misconduct. The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge characterization to Honorable, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.  The board was conducted on 13 Oct 2020.  

The applicant was represented by counsel.    

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 13 Oct 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. 
  
The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge characterization to Honorable, to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority, and to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 3K.

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 Several Letters of Reprimand and a couple of Records of Individual Counseling. Her misconduct included:  Failure to go at prescribed time to appointed place of duty (x3); Absent without leave; Dereliction of Duty (x2)  

Due to evidence of mental health conditions 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/or counsel contended the discharge was inequitable/improper because the applicant was a migraine sufferer and was on a myriad of medication left her groggy and unable her to perform her to perform her job to its maximum potential.  She states that she was on several different medications. They contend that the applicant was bullied and targeted, a Major she worked with wrote a book using the applicant as a case study.  Her counsel contends that the applicant was a victim of toxic leadership and Gender Bias and provides the Army definition of toxic leadership.   The applicant states that she was constantly singled out for minor infractions and others in her office were shown leniency for the same issues.  She wanted to seek counseling however, due to her work, she did not find that it was a safe option to do so.  Her counsel states that once she was sent to another unit she thrived and she should have been allowed to stay in and that none of her egregious like drugs or alcohol.  Multiple character letters included in original application.

The DRB determined that, through the administrative actions taken by the chain of command in this case, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior. The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found insufficient evidence to grant the applicant’s request. The board concluded the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions she made during her Air Force career.

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

The board recommends the applicant exercise her right to directly appeal the DRB’s decision to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records by requesting clemency based on post-service activities and accomplishments. 

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 her request was not approved. 

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 15 Oct 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)