AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2020-00669	
					
The applicant was discharged on 11 Oct 11 in accordance with AFI 36-3207 with an Honorable discharge for Unsatisfactory Performance.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code. The board was conducted on 2 Feb 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 narrative reason to Secretarial Authority, and to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 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.  

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 he sought MH counselling for personal mental wellness. After a 15 minute appointment with a nurse practitioner, he was prescribed antidepressants which eliminated him from his training program.  The member explains that he was not advised of the impact the medication would have on his training status nor was he given a choice to accept or decline the meds. He continues to say that he never had any intention of taking the meds however, by the time he arrived back at the school house, the commander had already decided to send him home.  The member reiterates that he did not know he could decline the medication and he would have had he known he could. The member states that once he returned to his home base, he immediately sought mental health to discuss the events from training. He concluded that the MH doctor did not have any concerns nor any follow-up instructions/treatment. The applicant explains that then he reported to his Sq/CC and he was given two options; one, return to complete his training; or two, try to move to a different career field. The member stated he would try to meet a reclassification panel. He states that the commander did not ever discuss the possibility that if he did not get re-classed, that he would be discharge with a separation code that would not allow him to seek a commission in the future. The member claims that if he would’ve known this information, he would’ve chosen to return to technical training rather than attempt to get reclassified. AFPC then requested additional information for the re-class request. He states that his Sq/CC requested a mental health recommendation from mental health. The member claims that what was on the letter was a shock to him because none of the information was communicated to him from the mental health doctor. He states that months later, he was command directed to have a mental health evaluation. The member explains that upon arrival, the MH doctor stated that they were good friends with the member’s Sq/CC and the member knew the evaluation would be biased. He states that he should’ve requested another MH professional but he didn’t know better. The member states that in the evaluation, there were so many things taken out of context and presented as stand-alone facts. The member concluded that if his mental health condition was as serious as described, then why weren’t any treatments or therapies recommended? 
The applicant requests discharge equity in the form of relief base on his service record before separation from Active duty, subsequent ANG service and his capability to serve in the ANG Nurse Corps. He states he does not recall any negative information which would point to an overall unsatisfactory performance meriting elimination from training. He clarifies that the biggest challenge was of personal nature. The member concludes that he is seeking a Registered Nurse position with the ANG but he is prohibited due to the current JHJ separation code and the Narrative reason. 

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.

Upon review of the applicant’s service record, the board was not able to find any documentation regarding the discharge.  Since the board relies on the presumption of regularity, it concluded the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.  

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 4 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)