AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2020-00417	
					
The applicant was discharged on 1 Oct 10 in accordance with AFI 36-3209 with a General discharge for Failure to comply with requirements for a medical exam.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge characterization to Honorable. The board was conducted on 20 Oct 20.  

The applicant was not represented by counsel.    

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference using VIDYO Cloud Connect between Joint Base Andrews, MD, and applicant’s home address on 20 Oct 20.  No witnesses were present and testified on the applicant’s behalf.
 
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 her discharge characterization to Honorable, to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority, and to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 2C / 3K.

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 contends that the reason for discharge was invalid. Member states that she signed all release forms need to send his med documents to base. She states he was unaware that this was not done. She goes on to say that no one from base contacted her to advise that they had not received the documents. She says she was never in any trouble prior to the accident. Member goes on to say that the discharge was based on one incident during her almost 5 years in the ANG. She says the incident was out of her control and she did her part by signing the paperwork needed. She states that she gave fax and phone numbers and also called base to check in but was never told the information was not received. Member states that they sent the discharge paperwork to an old address of hers and her commander was aware of it. She states that she was also dealing with multiple personal issues. She also states that she was younger, a single mom, didn’t have the support she needed and didn’t have a steady living situation. She states that she advised the base of her situation prior to getting in the accident and requested to go full time so that she could better support herself but was told it was impossible. The member also states that she requested transfer to an active duty base and was told no because the manning at her current unit. She states that her recruiter told her that going active would be possible after boot camp. The member states that she found ways to get to drills prior to her accident but then her car was totaled and she had fear of driving for over a year. She also stated that with the little support she had, she was barely able to get to physical therapy, let alone early morning rides to base for drill. She believes that the discharge was given out of spite due to her request to leave the unit to go active and no attempt was made to contact her. The member states that she was unable to get physical therapy records due to being 5 years old but she does have medical record from doctor’s office.

The DRB determined that, through the administrative actions taken by the chain of command in this case, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior. It recognized the applicant served 5 years before the discharge was initiated and reviewed the entire service record, but concluded the seriousness of the applicant’s misconduct offset the positive aspects of her service. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was deemed to be appropriate.

After a thorough review of the service record and inputs from the board’s psychiatrist/ psychologist, the DRB found no conclusive indication that any mental health issues had a direct impact on the applicant's misconduct or discharge.
 
If the applicant can provide additional information to substantiate her contentions, the board recommends she exercise the right to 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 her request was not approved. 

The DRB results were approved by the board president 20 Oct 20.  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)