AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2020-00556	
					
The applicant was discharged on 23 Oct 2013 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Drug Rehabilitation Failure.  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 22 Oct 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 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 a Letter of Reprimand and a couple of Letters of Counselling. Her misconduct included: Failed a fitness assessment; failed to report to a scheduled medical appointment; made a false official statement with the intent to deceive two special agents.

Due to evidence of  post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and mental health condition/s 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 that the discharge was inequitable as her mental illnesses and PTSD stemming from military sexual assault were not appropriately considered at that time. She states that during her first several months of training after entering active duty, she was victimized by a sexual predator assigned as her MTI at BMT. She goes on to say the MTI not only victimized her but three other women. She goes on to say that the assault damaged her emotionally and physically as well as ended her service. The Member states that she suffered from major depression, anxiety, and PTSD as a direct result of the documented sexual trauma. She goes on to say that rather than receiving much needed treatment, she was unfairly denied a medical separation and was retaliated against by her command and punitively discharged with characteristics that have stained her reputation and caused further suffering. She states that her CC and 1st Sergeant were aware of the sexual assault as well as her mental health issues that resulted. She also states that her CC used information obtained from OSI investigation of repeated sexual misconduct to accuse her of adultery and to subject her to NJP. She states that her 1st sergeant, the person who took her to inpatient mental health care due to suicide attempt, who went to her house to remove weapons to prevent further attempts, was the one who also counselled her into refusing further treatment under the guise of “ending the problem of being enlisted quickly” she believes that her CC and 1st sergeant were aware that she was under the influence of several potent anti-psychotics and she believes that they were aware that she would be vulnerable to pressure. She goes on to say that this coerced refusal of treatment ended the med separation process that was initiated by her MH providers as a result of MH disabilities and resulted in the inappropriate discharge. Member states that she should have been medically separated and that her discharge characterization is unfair, punitive and inaccurate. The member continues to say that her mental health was so poor that until she received intensive treatment by the VAs trauma recovery program that she was unable to maintain employment and found herself struggling repeatedly with homelessness and food insecurity. The member states that she was failed by Air Force leadership twice. First when leadership of BMT failed to mitigate an environment that allowed a repeat sexual predator unfettered access to young female airmen and again when her leadership punitively discharged her for a mental health crisis brought on by the former offense. She says that correcting her discharge would allow her to move forward, unburdened by the past injustices.

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. The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found insufficient evidence to grant the applicant’s request. The board concluded the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions she made during her Air Force career.

After a thorough review of the service record and input from the board’s psychiatrist/ psychologist, the DRB found that some of 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.

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 10 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)