AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2020-00071	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 26 September 2018 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General Discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions). The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge characterization and a change to the discharge narrative reason.

The applicant was represented by counsel and requested the board be completed based on a records only review.

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. 

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 an Article 15, multiple Letters of Reprimand, and multiple Letters of Counseling.  Her misconduct included:  disobeyed a lawful order (alcohol found in dorm, member was underage, second ARI since completion of ADAPT); disobeyed a lawful order (cat in dorm room); disobeyed a lawful order on numerous occasions (lack of discipline and unprofessional behavior); disobeyed a lawful order (failure to show up to work on time); disobeyed a lawful order (did not follow policy for appointments, left without notifying someone); disobeyed a lawful order on numerous occasions (failed to participate in PT, when directed, member blatantly turned her back and ignoring the direct order, then was argumentative and disrespectful with leadership; failed to attend CC directed formation; showed up to a formal military event with hair not a natural color; wore makeup that was not conservative; disobeyed a lawful order (failed to report to PT); disobeyed a lawful order (late to PT due to lack of gas); Unlawfully cut the finger of another with a steak knife; unlawfully strike the face and back of another with hand; unlawfully strike the head face and body of another with a brush and hand.  

The applicant through counsel contended that the Air Force did not protect her through a sexual assault and during continued sexual harassment in the workplace. The applicant requested that the DRB rectify her treatment by upgrading the discharge character and narrative reason. The applicant would like access to the GI Bill. The Counsel’s contentions was that the discharge was inequitable because the punishment was inconsistent with standards at the time.  With liberal consideration, the DRB should grant relief, as the sexual assault and subsequent PTSD mitigates the misconduct that resulted in the discharge.

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.  Although the applicant stated that she received inadequate help during service, the Board determined that the applicant received all the available support that the Air Force had to offer at the time. Regarding liberal consideration, the DRB thoroughly considered the totality of the circumstances, but found that although the misconduct is mitigated her experiences it could not fully outweigh the misconduct that resulted in the discharge. The Board acknowledges that the applicant’s present service characterization renders her ineligible for Department of Veterans Affairs education benefits.  However, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

LIBERAL CONSIDERATION:

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 (LC) standards required by guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and 10 USC §1553. The Board included a member who is clinical psychologist.  Specifically, the Board reviewed the four questions the Under Secretary of Defense provided that boards should consider when weighing evidence in requests for modification of discharges due in whole or in part to mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI); sexual assault, and sexual harassment.  The Board considered the following: 

1. Did the veteran have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? 

The applicant, through counsel, contended the applicant “deserves to be granted relief because she experienced sexual assault and harassment and developed PTSD during her Air Force service which excuses or mitigates her discharge, and the sexual assault and PTSD outweigh her discharge.” 
 
2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 

Based on a review of the applicant’s records, there is evidence the applicant reported she experienced a sexual assault in/around summer 2014. A review of the applicant’s records indicates the applicant sought and received inpatient, partial hospitalization, intensive outpatient, and outpatient mental health services during her time in service. There is evidence the applicant was command referred to ADAPT and FAP during her time in service. Based on the applicant’s military medical records, the applicant received the in-service diagnoses of anxiety disorder, unspecified (2015), other specified trauma or stressor related disorder (2015, 2016), adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression (2018), and borderline personality disorder (2018). 

3. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 

Based on review of the available records, the applicant’s contended experience of MST occurred in/around summer 2014. There is evidence the applicant’s pattern of misconduct began after this time period and persisted for the duration of the applicant’s service career. The applicant submitted evidence from her mental health providers during her time in service that indicated the applicant was experiencing marked distress related to her assault and interpersonal/relational problems. There is evidence the applicant’s experience of MST and her mental health conditions were known to the applicant’s chain of command throughout the applicant’s service, and were considered during the applicant’s discharge process and may have mitigated her discharge.   

There is evidence the applicant exhibited and endorsed features of a personality disorder during her time in service. The applicant’s personality disorder traits likely caused or substantially contributed to her behavioral and misconduct issues in service and are considered incompatible for military service. Personality disorders and traits are conditions of a developmental nature- they are pervasive, stable, persistent, and often resistant to treatment. Based on a review of the applicant’s service records, the applicant was DAWG-reviewed on multiple occasions and returned to duty; the applicant was also referred for MEB processing and was found to have no unfitting, boardable conditions.  The applicant’s personality disorder may explain the applicant’s misconduct, but it does not mitigate misconduct.  

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Based on review of the applicant’s records, the applicant’s experiences and mental health conditions were known and fully considered by the applicant’s command during the discharge process. Although there is evidence the applicant’s experience of MST and her mental health condition may have mitigated her discharge, there is insufficient evidence the applicant’s discharge is outweighed when considering the totality of the applicant’s service career.

Additionally, the Board considered the factors laid out in the attachment to the Under Secretary of Defense memorandum, Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations, dated 25 June 2018, known as the “Wilkie Memo.”  The Board considered the factors listed in paragraphs (6)(a)-(6)(l) and (7)(a)-(7)(r) of this memorandum. 

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 or 3K.
 
CONCLUSION:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service, service/medical record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was proper.  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain “General”, the narrative reason for separation shall remain “Misconduct (Minor Infractions)”, and the reenlistment code shall remain “2B”. If the applicant has additional evidence to support her contentions, then the Board recommends the appeal to the DRB for a Personal Appearance hearing.  The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 4 November 2022.  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  
Instructions on how to appeal an AFDRB decision can be found at 
https://afrbaportal.azurewebsites.us

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief (Applicant Only)