AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2020-00510	
					
The applicant was discharged on 20 Dec 18 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge for Misconduct (Serious Offense).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to General/Honorable, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.    

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 on 16 Feb 21.  A witness was 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. 
  
FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously approve the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to General and to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority. It voted 2 to 1 to deny 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.  His misconduct included: willfully failed to refrain from consuming alcohol under the age of 21; altered information on military ID card.

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 counsel contend impropriety and inequity. The member and counsel state that the allegations were false. They go on to explain that the member has always maintained innocence but the embarrassment and shame of the nature of the accusations caused him to lose hope and not try to fight the discharge. In statement from the mother, they state that the daughter had a told a male classmate the allegations in order to seem cool. They also state that the victim had tried to tell everyone it was made up. They state that she has developmental delays and has a history of telling stories and making comments that are not true. The member and counsel state that through investigation, it was determined that there was no truth to the allegations and the case was ultimately dismissed through Nolle Prosequi. They state that the command had already made up their minds that he was guilty and recommended discharge. They go on to state that the command moved forward with discharge before conclusion of the investigation. They state that that applicant has been unjustly labeled as an Airman that had serious misconduct issues, all of which was predicated on false accusations. They go on to state that the member has been stigmatized and harmed by this discharge which has been recognized by various courts.

CONCLUSION:  

The board found neither the evidence of record, nor that provided by the applicant substantiated any inequity.  However, sufficient evidence existed to convince the board the discharge was improper.  The board relied on the dismissal of the underlying case and sworn testimony from his mother.  The board also concluded that due to previous infractions in the applicant’s record, the member’s service could not be characterized as Honorable.  Therefore, the board determined the overall characterization of the applicant’s service was more accurately reflected by a General discharge and the discharge narrative reason was more accurately described as “Secretarial Authority.”  The board did not change the reenlistment eligibility code. 

If the applicant can provide additional information to substantiate his contentions, the board recommends he exercise the right to directly appeal the DRB’s decision to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. 
  
The DRB results were approved by the board president on 17 Feb 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)