AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER FD-2020-00452 GENERAL: The applicant was discharged on 28 Mar 18 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Honorable discharge for Adjustment Disorder. The applicant appealed for a change to the reenlistment eligibility code. The board was conducted on 13 Aug 20. 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 change the reenlistment eligibility code to 3K. However, the DRB voted unanimously to approve a change of the narrative reason to reflect Secretarial Authority. 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 one Letter of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseling. His misconduct included: failure to go at prescribed time to appointed place of duty (x2); lack of accessibility to personal funds as a result of fraudulent activity on person debit card; and failure to report to a mandatory monthly meeting. 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. The applicant made no contentions that the discharge was inequitable or improper. The applicant admits to sleeping in and being late for duty on multiple occasions, and receiving multiple disciplinary actions for the infractions. He states that he was directed to speak with a psychologist after making false statements regarding his lateness. The applicant insists the sessions became progressively worse with each visit, and he was prescribed medication for depression and anxiety. He states that he refused to take the medication and flushed them down the toilet every day to keep up with the schedule and give the appearance that he was taking them. The applicant regrets the decisions that led to his discharge, and believes that he has grown in the past two years. He is requesting the change to his RE Code in order to return to military service. Per guidance from the Department of Defense, applicant requests to change the narrative reason should be approved when the original narrative reason was Adjustment/Personality Disorder and there were no aggravating factors in the record, such as misconduct. The board determined the facts in this case met the criteria and, therefore approved the applicant's request to change the narrative reason. The board found no evidence to justify making any changes to the narrative reason. After a thorough review of the service record and input from the board's psychiatrist/ psychologist, the DRB found that the applicant's mental health condition was a mitigating factor to the applicant's misconduct, however, it could not completely explain or excuse the misconduct sufficiently to warrant upgrading the discharge. 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 25 Aug 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)