AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2021-00040	
					
The applicant was discharged on 29 Jan 10 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable.  The Board was conducted on 13 May 21.  

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. 
  
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 / 3K.

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 an Article 15, several Letters of Reprimand, and several Letters of Counseling.  His misconduct included:  Failed to complete req. for SABC class; failure to go at the time prescribed/failed to submit CDCs in a timely manner; with intent to deceive, make a false official statement; failed to complete vol 1 CDCs; failed to follow tech data; failed to maintain dorm room; failed to pay GTC bill on time; failed to pay military star card on time; failed to keep lawn mowed iaw house guidelines; on divers occasions, responsible for care of a child under 16 and endangered physical health/welfare by failing to provide sanitary/safe living quarters. 

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 state that the member suffers from PTSD as a direct result of his service and the minor infractions from 2007 should not have been relevant for discharge purposes. They state that his achievements and contributions far outweigh the minor infractions. The member would like to be able to use the GI Bill. 

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 Veterans 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. While the applicant stated he had PTSD, most of the misconduct was prior to his deployment.  The records reflect that the primary condition that could explain some of the applicant’s misconduct existed prior to service (EPTS), and thus does not fall under the purview of liberal consideration. The applicant’s mental health condition may mitigate some of his behavior, but there is no evidence or records to indicate that the applicant’s condition was so severe as to mitigate his entire service career of misconduct, particularly when he was not seeking help for any mental health conditions at the time the majority of the incidents happened.  

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. 

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 18 May 21.  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)