AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2020-00499	
					
The applicant was discharged on 28 Dec 18 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Serious Offense).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge characterization to Honorable, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.  The board was conducted on 17 Nov 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 upgrade her discharge characterization to Honorable, to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority, and to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 2C.

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. Her misconduct included: Engaged in a romantic and sexual relationship with subordinate.

The member states the discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident during her 5 years with no other adverse actions. She states she has suffered from mental health issues and has experience significant personal problems that led to this incident and affected her ability to serve. She states that prior to the military, she had gone through traumatic experiences. She goes on to say that her parents separated when she was in middle school resulting in her living between two homes. She states she left home because she felt there was no way for her to have a better life for herself. She states she came from a family who didn’t have much and her mom had to make a lot of sacrifices. She states she join to serve her country, establish becoming independent and the further her education. The member states that in 2016, things in her personal life started to take a turn. She states she was in a physically and emotionally abusive relationship. She states that due to stigma with MH, she contacted military one source to be connect with a Psychologist. She states they put in a referral for her and she attended one session. She states she informed them of relationship and self-worth issues but didn’t mention the abuse because she didn’t want to her their career. She states during all this time, she didn’t feel loved and felt that she had no one to confide in. She goes on to say that she lost her sense of self-worth and wasn’t motivated to do anything besides work and come home. She states she established the relationship with the Airman and confided in him and he listened and cared. She states the Airman brought the relationship up to leadership. She states she knew what she was doing was wrong. She states she then checked herself in to mental health on base and goes on to say that she attended until she was discharged. She states that she was moved to the physical therapy building on base and her leadership only reached out to her to inform her of appointments with the CC. She states she felt everyone turned against her. She states that she still feels like she needs help and that she’s not where she should be mentally. She states that she was rated at 50% service connected depression. She states she is hoping to be upgraded to Honorable due to an undiagnosed case of depression so that she can receive GI bill benefits to continue her education.

The DRB 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 willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of her service. It found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.  The board understood the applicant’s present service characterization renders her ineligible for Department of Veteran Affairs education benefits.  However, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade. 
 
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.  

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. Additionally, the applicant’s contention and medical records indicated the mental health condition existed prior to service and there was no evidence it was aggravated by military service.

If the applicant can provide additional information to substantiate her contentions, the board recommends she 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 her request was not approved. 

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 18 Nov 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)