AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2021-00672	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 18 September 2008 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General Discharge for Misconduct. The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge characterization.

The applicant was not represented by counsel.    

The applicant requested the board be completed based on a records only review.

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 Letters of Reprimand and multiple Letters of Counseling. Her misconduct included: Failure to maintain financial responsibility by have a balance past due on her Star Card; made a false official statement when asked to disclose past overdue debt; accumulated 12 points through 3 separate traffic violations within 12 months, driving privileges were revoked; failed to answer on call cell phone; and failed to go to CBRNE training.

The applicant did not contend the equity or propriety of her discharge.  She requested an upgrade to an honorable characterization because she contended that she had undiagnosed mental health disorders while serving. She explained that her conduct was reflected as misbehavior but she stated she was not directed to see MH. The applicant also stated that she had sleep issues and was prescribed medication to help, but there was no further check of her mental wellbeing. She explained that she had the same issues post-service and so she eventually sought help. She explained that she was diagnosed with Bi-polar disorder, anxiety, depression and PTSD. She concluded that after receiving help, her mental health has improved drastically and now she wants to continue her education and pursue a career path.

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 evidence within the record does not support the applicant’s contentions that she didn’t have adequate help with her mental health issues. The applicant received significant mental health assistance during service. Prior to the infractions, the applicant was command directed to have an evaluation by mental health.  Following her visit with the base mental health provider, it was determined that her continued use of mental health services would be voluntary. The applicant declined to schedule appointments for additional help, until the applicant’s debt issues were revealed.  Then the applicant was seen as a walk in at the mental health clinic. She was again seen after she committed further misconduct and she attended a few sessions. The applicant’s contention that she did not have help with her mental health issues is not supported by the evidence in her record.

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 have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? 

The applicant contended “I am requesting my discharge to be upgraded to honorable due to the fact that I had undiagnosed mental health disorders while serving. My conduct reflected misbehavior while serving but I was not directed to a mental health facility to be checked out or observed. I had uncontrollable outbursts, I fell into a deep depression for a year and did not understand why.” 
The applicant also claims “I was diagnosed with Bi Polar disorder, anxiety, depression, and PTSD. I was awarded a VA disability claim due to these diagnosis’s Now that I am on the correct medications and continue to see my therapist, my mental health has changed drastically.” 

2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 
There is evidence the applicant was seen in the mental health clinic during her time in service and was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Depressed mood. Based on the available records, the applicant was seen for a CDE in 2007 and declined further mental services. Based on the available records, there is no evidence the applicant received a diagnosis of PTSD in service or presented with any clinical significant indicators. The applicant self-referred for mental health service in 2008 and attended four sessions. Also in 2008, there is evidence applicant was referred by her PCM for additional mental health follow up related to sleep disturbances. The records indicate applicant attended one session.

3. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 

The applicant stated in her application statement that she “fell into a deep depression for a year” but did not elaborate on when this occurred or how it may have caused or mitigated the misconduct that led to her discharge. The applicant’s claims in her application are inconsistent with the evidence in the applicant’s medical records. Based on the available evidence and records, there is no nexus between the applicant’s mental health condition and the misconduct(s) that led to her discharge. 
Regarding the applicant’s concurrence with her VA disability claim; the VA, operating under a different set of laws than the military, is empowered to offer compensation for any medical or mental health condition with an established nexus to military service, without regard to its impact on a member’s fitness to serve, the narrative reason for release for service, or the length of time that has transpired since the date of discharge. The VA may also conduct periodic reevaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating as the level of impairment from a given condition may improve or worsen over the life of the veteran. At the “snapshot in time” of the applicant’s service, there is no evidence the applicant’s mental health condition caused or mitigated the misconduct(s) that led to the applicant’s discharge.

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 
Because the applicant’s condition did not mitigate the discharge, it does not outweigh the discharge. 

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: 

(6)(h).  Requests for relief based in whole or in part on a mental health condition, should be considered for relief on equitable, injustice, or clemency grounds whenever there is insufficient evidence to warrant relief for an error or impropriety.

Although the applicant contented that mental health issues were the cause of her misconduct, the board could not find sufficient evidence that the mental health condition would mitigate the misconduct.  

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 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 General, the narrative reason for separation shall remain Misconduct, and the reentry code shall remain 2B. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 29 April 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)