AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2021-00154	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 16 June 2006 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General Discharge for Misconduct. The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.  The Board was conducted on 13 January 2022.

The applicant was represented by counsel.    

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. 

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 multiple Article 15s, multiple Letters of Reprimand, and multiple Records of Individual Counseling.  His misconduct included: Failure to go at the time prescribed on multiple occasions; provided a false statement to his supervisor; on divers occasions, disobeyed flightline speed limit while moving equipment; failed to pickup and transport AGE equipment; left appointed duty location without permission; failed to properly transfer accountability of key, flashlight, and radio to the tool room.  

The applicant and counsel contended that the discharge was improper due to the fact that neither the initiating commander nor the separation authority gave reasons as to why he was denied the opportunity for probation and rehabilitation. Additionally, they contended that the discharge was also inequitable because the minor disciplinary infractions stemmed from depression and financial burdens when his wife left him. Lastly, they stated that the applicant had stellar performance reports, strong character references and outstanding post-service achievements, which should all be in favor of an upgrade. 

The DRB determined that per the legal review of discharge, the appropriateness of probation and rehabilitation was reviewed prior to the applicants discharge, however, despite the unit’s efforts, the member’s continued disregard for military standards demonstrated poor rehabilitative potential. In regards to the marital and financial issues, the board felt that those issues may have contributed to some of the misconduct, however, it could not completely explain or excuse the misconduct sufficiently to warrant upgrading the discharge. Lastly, despite the applicant’s performance during and after service, the board concluded that the negative aspects of his service outweighed the positive contributions he made during service.  

LIBERAL CONSIDERATION:

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 (LC) standards required by guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and 10 USC §1553.  The Board included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist Specifically, the Board reviewed the four questions the Under Secretary of Defense provided that boards should consider when weighing evidence in requests for modification of discharges due in whole or in part to mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI); sexual assault, and sexual harassment.  The Board considered the following: 

1. Did the veteran contend to have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
Yes, the member contended that the minor disciplinary actions stemmed from marital issues which caused depression and financial problems. The member was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood. 

2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 
Yes, the member initially reported to a MH provider during service with complaints of financial issues due to divorce. Additionally, the member endorsed symptoms of depression. He was subsequently diagnosed with Adjustment disorder with depressed mood. 

3. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
No, although the applicant through counsel contends that he was struggling with depression and insomnia at the time of misconduct, roughly a month after his initial appointment with the MH provider, the member stated that he felt fine, did not want medication, and wanted to close the case. The member did not ever return for assistance.

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 
No it does not. The member’s pattern of misconduct started just under a year before he reported any sort of mental health issues. 

Additionally, the Board considered the factors laid out in the attachment to the Under Secretary of Defense memorandum, Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations, dated 25 June 2018, known as the “Wilkie Memo.”  The Board considered the factors listed in paragraphs (6)(a)-(6)(l) of this memorandum, and concluded the following with regard to each factor: 

j.  Similarly situated Service members sometimes receive disparate punishments.  A Service member in one location could face court-martial for an offense that routinely is handled administratively across the Service. While a court-martial or a command would be within its authority to choose a specific disposition forum or issue a certain punishment, DRBs should nevertheless consider uniformity and unfair disparities in punishments as a basis for relief. 

Due to the long pattern of misconduct but relatively low level of severity, the board felt a General discharge is proper and would be very commonplace with similarly situated Airmen.  

k.  Relief is generally more appropriate for non-violent offenses than for violent offenses.

Although the applicant’s misconduct is non-violent, there was a long pattern of offenses with the applicant showing no indications of rehabilitation, despite the unit’s efforts. 

FINDING:  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 or 3K.
 
CONCLUSION:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s contentions, summary of service, service/medical record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was proper. Therefore, the characterization of service shall remain a General, the narrative reason for separation shall remain “Misconduct”, and the reentry code shall remain a 2B. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 27 January 2022.  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  
Instructions on how to appeal an AFDRB decision can be found at 
https://afrbaportal.azurewebsites.us

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief (Applicant Only)