AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2020-00624	
					
The applicant was discharged on 6 Mar 09 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct. The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge characterization to Honorable.  The board was conducted on 7 Jan 21.  

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/ 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 her discharge characterization to Honorable, to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority, and to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 2C.

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 an Article 15 and a vacation of suspended non-judicial punishment. Her misconduct included: Willfully refrained from using government travel card for personal use; made a false official statement with the intent to deceive; disrespectful in deportment toward an NCO

Due to evidence of  post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and 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 states that the ADC, Commander and First Sergeant informed her that she did not quietly accept the discharge, she would be given a dishonorable and loose every benefit available. She goes on to state that she was told that by accepting a general, it would automatically upgrade within a year. She states she was also told that she would be able to enlist in another branch of service. The member states that she would still be in service if she was not blatantly lied to by her chain of command. She goes on to state that she is now 100% disabled with PTSD caused by the action of her command and lack of support while in service. 

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 board concluded the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions she made during her Air Force career. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was deemed to be appropriate.

A discharge is not automatically upgraded. It is upgraded only if it is established that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  After a thorough review of the record, the board found no evidence to justify making any changes to the discharge.
 
Upon review of the applicant’s service record, the board was not able to find any documentation regarding the discharge or service treatment records. The applicant did not submit any records to support her contentions. 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 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.

If the applicant can provide additional information to substantiate her contentions, the board recommends she exercise the right to make a personal appearance before the DRB or directly 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 her request was not approved. 

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 22 Jan 21.  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)