AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2020-00655	
					
The applicant was discharged on 12 Apr 18 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.  The board was conducted on 19 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 his discharge characterization to Honorable, to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority, and to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 2C / 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 an Article 15, several Letters of Reprimand, and a Letter of Counseling.  His misconduct included: late to work on divers occasions; failed to obey lawful order from an NCO; failed duty position evaluation; driving personal vehicle with expired registration; playing games on phone after failing two evaluations; not wearing seatbelt; failed fitness assessment; late to work and not in appropriate uniform.

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 states that the Art 15 was unjust and unfair. He goes on to say that they charged him with being AWOL while he was at the medical appointments seeking mental health treatment for suicidal ideations linked to major depressive disorder. The member states that he hopes that the mental health treatments and surrounding events can serve as evidence of an honorable medical discharge and not a General. The member also states that attached to the application is the Article 138 paperwork he filed against his leadership but it was thrown out for unexplained reasons and was not given proper redress as they rushed the discharge process. 
The applicant explains that during his first deployment, he lost a good friend. Upon return, he states that his mood was different, things were frustrating him at work and he spoke up against superiors over things that shouldn’t have bothered him. The member goes on to state that during the enlistment, he progressively got more depressed resulting communication with mental health. Regarding the Article 15 art 91 violation, the member states that they claim he purposely rescheduled his appointments during duty hours and regarding disobeying the lawful order to not schedule appointments during duty hours, he states that the appointment was already scheduled prior to the order. The member states regarding the two art 86 violations, the first incident, he was at the mental health appointment until the time he showed up for work. He states the second incident, he was 3 minutes late because he overslept after having issues getting to sleep because of anxiety and he states his leadership knew this information at the time. The member states regarding the Article 138 complaint that they denied addressing it citing that in order to get the art 15 changed or removed, he would have to submit it to the BCMR. He goes on to state that they ignored his request and verbally told him the they won’t be addressing this due to the fact that his discharge date was soon, thereby he would not have the opportunities to have his grievances filed under the UCMJ as he doesn’t fall under the jurisdiction after discharge. The member concludes that he’s not a perfect Airman and not claiming to be. We would like to be upgraded so that he may use the VA benefits to continue school. He also states that he was denied entry into the police academy and he does not see his military experience as a negative one

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.    
The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.  The board understood the applicant’s present service characterization renders him ineligible for Department of Veteran Affairs education benefits.  However, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was deemed to be appropriate.

After a thorough review of the service record and input from the board’s psychiatrist/ psychologist, the DRB found that some of the applicant’s mental health condition was a mitigating factor to the applicant's misconduct, however, it could not completely explain or excuse the misconduct sufficiently to warrant upgrading the discharge.

If the applicant can provide additional information to substantiate his contentions, the board recommends he 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 his 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)