AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2020-00107	
					
The applicant was discharged on 27 Mar 2015 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, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.  The board was conducted on 7 Apr 2020.  

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 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 approve 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.

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 multiple Letters of Reprimand and Counseling all for failure to report for duty on time.  The applicant contended, through counsel that his discharge was inequitable and improper because he had a medical condition that led to his misconduct.  He asserts he was punished and unfavorably discharged from the Air Force because he had a diagnosed medical problem that was being treated with medications that caused him, as evidenced by extensive testing and medication management, to oversleep and be late to work.  He claims his commander ignored his history of medical treatment and believed his misconduct was intentional.  The applicant further asserts the only misconduct he had was medical induced lateness and that he was an otherwise good Airman that does not deserve a misconduct discharge.  

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 standards required by guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and/or 10 USC §1553.

A review of the applicant’s service record disclosed the applicant received mental health treatment services for depression and sleep problems from 13 June 2014 – 11 March 2015.  Prior to his mental health treatment, he sought medical treatment for sleep issues starting on 13 March 2014, underwent a sleep study, and was diagnosed with sleep apnea.  He was subsequently placed on a physical profile due to medications that may cause drowsiness or oversleeping.  After a thorough review of the record, and inputs from the board’s psychiatrist/psychologist, the DRB determined there is sufficient evidence that his medical and mental health conditions mitigated his misconduct, as all of his misconduct involved failure to report for duty on time.  Therefore, the DRB found conclusive evidence that the applicant’s medical and mental health issues had a direct impact on his misconduct and subsequent discharge.  

CONCLUSION:  The board found neither the evidence of record, nor that provided by the applicant substantiated an impropriety.  However, sufficient evidence existed to convince the board the discharge was inequitable.  Therefore, the board determined the overall characterization of the applicant’s service was more accurately reflected by an Honorable and the discharge narrative reason was more accurately described as “Secretarial Authority.”  Additionally, the reenlistment eligibility code was changed to “2C.”     

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 14 Apr 2020.  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)