AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2021-00682	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 8 October 2019 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Under Other Than Honorable (UOTHC) discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference using Zoom on 26 April 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 contended he was wrongfully discharged from the Air Force.  He claimed the investigation into his conduct was biased and not conducted in a fair manner.  He asserted there were unresolved inconsistencies that did not substantiate the allegations.  He further asserted he only requested the Chapter 4 discharge because at the time he was recovering from a brain tumor and did not want to endure the stress of a court-martial.  He requested an upgrade based on impropriety.  

A review of the applicant’s record revealed that a Command Directed Investigation (CDI) was conducted in the unit after allegations were made against the applicant for creating a hostile work environment by making disparaging remarks regarding women in the military and also making disrespectful comments about the unit commander.  The allegations were substantiated and the unit preferred court-martial charges against the applicant for disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer, dereliction of duties for creating a hostile work environment, and assault and communicating a threat against an NCO.  The applicant submitted a Chapter 4 discharge request in lieu of trial which was subsequently approved.  

The applicant selected “other mental health” on his application, therefore, 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 never received mental health treatment while in the military.  The applicant’s medical records indicated he did have brain surgery in September 2019, however, the records differ in the type of surgery it was:  acoustic neuroma or hemangioblastoma.  

2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 
The applicant did not receive mental health treatment or a diagnosis of a mental health condition while in the military.

3. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
Because the applicant did not have a diagnosis for a mental health condition while in service, the condition did not excuse the misconduct that led to his discharge. There is no evidence that a mental health condition was a mitigating factor in the applicant voluntarily requesting a discharge in lieu of a court-martial.  

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

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  it is consistent with military custom and practice to honor sacrifices and achievements, to punish only to the extent necessary, to rehabilitate to the greatest extent possible, and to favor second chances in situations in which individuals have paid for their misdeeds.  After a thorough review of the applicant’s record, and his testimony at the personal appearance, the Board concluded there was evidence that proper administrative procedures were not followed in the circumstances regarding the applicant’s discharge.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s record that his leadership gave the applicant the chance to rehabilitate himself after his misconduct was substantiated and before he was discharged.  The Board concluded that although there was a basis for discharge, the service characterization the applicant received was harsher when compared to other similarly situated Airmen and was therefore inequitable.    

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable, however, the DRB voted unanimously to upgrade his discharge to a General characterization.  The DRB also voted unanimously to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority.  No change was made to the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility code.
 
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 improper and inequitable.  Therefore, the characterization of service shall change to General, the narrative reason for separation shall change to Secretarial Authority, and the reentry code shall remain.  The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 3 May 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)