AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2021-00204	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 31 January 2020 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Honorable Discharge for Condition, Not a disability. The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge narrative reason and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code

The applicant was 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 through counsel contended that the discharge was unjust because he was denied procedural due process regarding the Command Directed Evaluation. He also contended that the discharge was inequitable because the member was mischaracterized as having a personality or mental disorder. Additionally, the applicant contended that the discharge was inequitable because there was a clear agenda against him from his Commander. 

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 applicant did not provide sufficient evidence regarding the contentions that would warrant an upgrade to the discharge. The Board determined that the discharge received was appropriate. 

The applicant checked the box for “reprisal/whistleblower” on the application. Liberal consideration is not applied to this applicant’s case, as reprisal is not considered under the provisions of liberal consideration. The applicant, through counsel did not contest that a mental health condition caused the applicant’s discharge. The applicant, through counsel, contended the applicant “was wrongfully discharged after being improperly characterized as having a personality disorder. The applicant was the victim of an unjust CDE in which his due process procedural rights were violated on multiple fronts.” 

The Board completed a thorough review of the applicant’s service records in consideration of the applicant’s contention that he was never deemed unfit for military service. Based on the available records, the applicant was never found to have any unfitting, boardable medical or mental health conditions during his time in service. The applicant was found, through psychological testing, interview, and behavioral observation and report to exhibit features consistent with a personality disorder. Based on the applicant’s medical records, the applicant was independently evaluated by two clinical psychologists who determined the applicant met criteria for unspecified personality disorder. The applicant disputed the diagnosis and requested additional testing to rule out frontal lobe damage; this testing ruled out brain damage of any kind and provided additional support for the psychologist’s diagnosis of personality disorder. The applicant requested a second opinion regarding his diagnosis and had his records reviewed by an independent clinician who confirmed the appropriateness of personality disorder as a diagnosis.  Thus, the Board found that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to indicate the personality disorder diagnosis was inaccurate.

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously 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 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 awarded characterization of service shall remain “Honorable”, the narrative reason for separation shall remain “Condition, Not a Disability”, and the reentry code shall remain “2C”. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 7 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)