AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00003	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 20 January 2016 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge characterization and Narrative Reason was Misconduct (Serious Offense). The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge characterization, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.

The applicant was represented by counsel and 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 a violation of the UCMJ, Article 134. 

The applicant contended that her discharge was inequitable. The applicant stated that while stationed at Malmstrom AFB in 2016, she worked as a narcotics detector dog handler.  She stated that a couple of airmen on her flight decided to smoke marijuana.  She stated that she was regularly scheduled with the same airmen and did not want anything to do with it, but it was hard to get away from it.  AFOSI found out the Airmen she was scheduled with were smoking weed.  She stated that while she was getting ready to PCS to Aviano AFB she was called into the AFOSI station and was informed that they were going to do a drug bust on all the Airmen smoking weed.  She stated that some of them were her friends.  And, the airmen were at her house watching tv when AFOSI was looking for them.  She stated that she texted the Airmen that AFOSI was looking for them and to leave her home.  She stated that AFOSI found out and charged her with Obstruction of Justice.  She stated that she should not be punished for the rest of her life for one small mistake she made when she was young.  She stated that she would like to use her GI Bill.

The applicant made three contentions regarding her discharge.  First the applicant stated that there is a procedural defect in this case, the command should have evaluated the applicant as to whether she had a long-term problem or whether there had been a misunderstanding.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and determined the applicant received a UOTHC discharge after going to a summary court martial.  Because the applicant’s discharge was the result of a court martial the evidence indicates that the Air Force conducted a thorough review of all elements of the circumstances regarding this applicant’s discharge.  The applicant’s second contention is that the Command in this case did not have the proper authority to administratively separate the applicant.  The Board determined that although the applicant’s unit commander initiated the discharge process, the discharge was approved by the appropriate authority, who was the applicant’s base commander.  The applicant’s third contention is that the Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge does not serve a further purpose.  Based on Air Force standards for discharges, the discharge characterization is an appropriate description of the applicant’s entire service career.  Although the applicant’s duty performance was mostly satisfactory, the egregious nature of the applicant’s misconduct outweighs her positive contributions. 

The DRB determined that through the applicant’s testimony she did not provide evidence to indicate that the circumstances surrounding her discharge were improper or inequitable.  The applicant’s actions during the narcotics investigation did not demonstrate conduct expected of Airmen with honorable service.  The applicant acknowledged that she knew members of her unit smoked marijuana.  The Board concluded from her testimony, that as the sole narcotics’ dog handler on base, it was the applicant’s responsibility and duty to report members breaking the law.  The DRB determined that the administrative actions taken by the applicant’s chain of command were appropriate.  The board concluded the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed her positive contributions during her Air Force career.

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 clinical psychologist.  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 checked the “other mental health” box on the application. The applicant, through counsel, did not make any mental health contentions; the applicant, through counsel contended “the discharge was unfair at the time and remains so now. The discharge is both substantively and procedurally defective.”
 
2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 

There is evidence the applicant sought and received mental health services during her time in service. Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant received the diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression in 2014 and again 2017.

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

The applicant did not, nor did counsel, contend that a mental health condition caused the misconduct that led to the applicant’s discharge.  There is evidence the applicant appropriately sought and received mental health services intermittently during her time in service for psychosocial stressors including occupational and legal issues (while under investigation). There is no evidence of a mitigating nexus between the issues for which the applicant sought mental health services and the misconduct(s) that led to her discharge.  

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Because the applicant’s discharge is not mitigated by a mental health condition, it is also not outweighed.

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.” 

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 and medical records, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was proper and equitable. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain Under Honorable Conditions (General), the narrative reason for separation shall remain Misconduct (Serious Offense) and the reentry code shall remain 2B.  AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 9 November 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)