AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2021-00514	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 21 September 2006 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 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 applicant was represented by counsel.    

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, via video teleconference using Zoom on 11 January 2022. No witnesses were present to testify on the applicant’s behalf. 

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 a Letter of Reprimand.  His misconduct included:  Engaged in sexual acts with two girls who were under 16 years of age, leading to arrest.

The applicant and counsel contended that the conduct does not meet the definition of “Commission of a Serious Offense”. They also contended that there are extensive mitigating and extenuating facts surrounding his consensual sexual encounter that were never put before the separation authority. They explained that the conduct was consensual, the girls initiated the encounter, and he did not know that they were 15 years of age at the time. 

During the personal appearance, the applicant and counsel stated that the discharge Separation Program Designator did not match with the civilian charges of “contributing to the delinquency of a minor”. Additionally, the counsel read a character letter from the alleged victim during the appearance. In the letter, she stated that she didn’t believe that she told him her age at the time, he was not a predator, and that she and her friend were the instigators of the incident. 
  
The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found insufficient evidence to grant the applicant’s request. The Board recognized that the civilian charges do not match the Separation Program Designator code on the DD214. However, the applicant’s leadership did not have an obligation to make the basis of the discharge match the civilian criminal charges.  Also, at the time of the discharge, the applicant acknowledged the reasons for the discharge and waived his right to respond to them. Although the member was not charged for the sexual offenses in civilian court, he was discharged from the Air Force for them. The Board deemed the discharge appropriate.

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: 

Paragraph (6) (g) states, “The relative severity of some misconduct can change over time, thereby changing the relative weight of the misconduct in the case of the mitigating evidence in the case.”  However, the severity of punishment for the applicant’s offense has not changed over time. The Board determined that the current narrative reason is relatively lenient and the UOTHC characterization is typical. 

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to General or 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 issues, summary of service, service/medical record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was proper. Therefore, the characterization of service shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, 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 17 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)