AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2019-00807	
					
The applicant was discharged on 6 Feb 2013 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.  The board was conducted on 7 Apr 2020.  

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 represented by counsel.    

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 unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable, to change the discharge narrative reason, and to change the reenlistment eligibility code.

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 one Article 15, one vacation of suspended nonjudicial punishment, and one Letter of Counseling.  His misconduct included:  failure to obey a no contact order and failure to go.  

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 through counsel his discharge was too harsh and inequitable.  He claims the command, although likely with good intention, tried to protect him with a no-contact order, that prevented him from doing what he considered to be proper, and the legal thing for him to do was to provide assistance to the mother of his then unborn child.  Furthermore, he contends that the late to work incident that led to the Vacation Action, does not indicate how late he was, therefore he could not have been that late, and he was not AWOL, just merely late to work a couple times.  Counsel asserts the evidence, in conjunction with the applicant’s predominantly stellar duty performance provide sufficient mitigation and extenuation to consider his discharge harsh and inequitable.  Furthermore, a discharge less than honorable was disproportionate to the minor offenses committed, and the applicant was deserving of probation and rehabilitation.  
The DRB 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 concluded the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions he made during his 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.

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 14 Apr 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)