AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2020-00567	
					
The applicant was discharged on 8 Jul 15 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct. The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable and a change to the discharge narrative reason.  The board was conducted on 19 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 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. 
  
The DRB voted unanimously to deny 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.

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 few Letters of Counseling. His misconduct included: Departed GI party without permission and lied to NCO when questioned; failed to attend mandatory formation and made a false statement when questioned; failed to enforce the standard and set the example for casual duty and made a false statement known to be false; observed on diverse occasions neglecting official duties

Due to evidence of  mental health conditions 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 and counsel contend inequity. They state that the member was discharged during force reduction. They go on to state that he was admin discharged for minor offenses and when compared to the balance of his performance, the misconduct was insignificant. They state that per the character statements in the package, the member was head and shoulders above his peers, consistently upheld core values and inspired fellow Airmen. The member states that during tech school, he struggled to adjust to the social and behavioral dynamics. He states that he takes responsibility for his behavior. He goes on to state that the indiscretions that occurred during his time coincided with his mother becoming terminally ill and hospitalized. He states that this fueled his anxiety and depression that significantly impacted his performance and emotional state. He states that concern for his family led him to stay up late on the phone with his mother which contributed to lack of sleep that further hindered his performance and resulted in LORs. The member states that he did not seek help due to the desire to fit in and not draw attention to his painful experiences. He states that he believes if he would’ve sought counselling, his performance would have improved. The member states that due to the nature of infractions and his youth, he failed to place enough importance to the paperwork and he did not think it would result in discharge. He also states that there was often wide-spread minor misconduct amongst peers. He states that following his discharge, he felt haunted by his failure and was chastised by his family. He states his father essentially disowned him and he spiraled through bouts of depression. The member states that he sought help to cope with feelings of depression and anxiety. He states he plans to pursue a bachelor’s degree and continue to better his life. The member states that the quality of his service was honest and faithful. There were matters beyond his control that impaired his capability to serve. He states that his service was in part, undermined by permanent and urgent personal hardship. He states coping with his mother’s terminal illness while attempting to meet expectations of service proved to be challenging. He states that being a 20 year old Airman dealing with the potential and eventual loss of his mother, he does not believe he possessed the maturity and life experience to navigate through these troubled times. He states that he attempted to power through them and he realizes that was a mistake. Member states that he was not provided with the required pre-separation health assessment to evaluate his mental health condition and appropriateness of discharge. He goes on to state that he received no assessments or med testing aside from dental exam. He states that considering the emotional strain that he’d been under, he believes that had he been given a full pre-separation health assessment, he would likely have been provided with additional treatment and leniency. He states that he was surprised when he was recommended for discharge after exhibiting behavior that he had seen previously witnessed amongst his peers and believe that he received a disparate punishment that was not entirely equitable. The member states that he wants to receive an upgrade to the discharge so that he may provide a better future for his children and so that he can lead by a good example. He states it will help him mentally and assist with continued rehabilitation efforts. He states it will help him professionally and educationally as he pursues a bachelors and build a career. He goes on to state that the upgrade would mean the world to him and he cannot help but feel that his life depends on it.

The DRB determined that, through the administrative actions taken by the chain of command in this case, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The board concluded the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions he made during his Air Force career.   The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.  The board understood the applicant’s present service characterization renders him ineligible for Department of Veteran Affairs education benefits.  However, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was deemed to be appropriate.
 
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.

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. 

If the applicant can provide additional information to substantiate his contentions, the board recommends he 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.    

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 24 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)