AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00213	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 14 January 2008 with a Bad Conduct Discharge and the Narrative Reason for Separation was Completion of Required Active Service.

The applicant was not represented by counsel.    

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference using Zoom on 6 January 2023. 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 requested clemency for a more favorable discharge.  The applicant stated that while she was deployed, she was sexually assaulted but never reported the assault.  She stated that the effects of the assault caused her to become detached and use poor judgment.  She stated that one night she went to the club and, at the time, was unaware of the white substance she was persuaded into taking, which was cocaine.  The applicant stated that since her service completion, she has worked for an automotive manufacturing company.  She stated that she had been there for 13 years and has received multiple promotions and accolades for her performance.  She stated that she volunteers at her church and her mother-in-law's community center, and she also runs a Bouncy House business with her husband.  She stated that she deeply regretted what she did and would do anything to be cleared from her negative past.  

Upon review of an applicant’s Bad Conduct Discharge as adjudged by a Special Court-Martial, the DRB may change the punitive discharge to an administrative discharge for the purposes of clemency, if warranted.  The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and testimony and found sufficient evidence to grant the applicant’s request.  

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 checked the box for “sexual assault/harassment” on the application. The applicant contended “While on my deployment I experienced a very traumatic sexual situation that I felt like I died inside after. I told a close friend about that situation, but I never reported it, feeling ashamed and like my job would just be made harder for me.” 
 
2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 

There is no evidence the applicant sought or received any mental health treatment during her time in service. There is no evidence the applicant exhibited any clinically significant features of a mental health condition during her time in service. The applicant contended she experienced a “very traumatic sexual situation” and provided additional testimony to substantiate her contention of experiencing MST during her personal appearance. 

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

There is no evidence the applicant sought or received any mental health treatment during her time in service. The applicant reported she was unaware of any SAPR resources available to her during her time in service.  There is evidence the applicant’s experience of sexual assault mitigated the misconduct that led to her discharge and characterization. 

During the applicant’s personal appearance hearing, the applicant stated, “I already kept a lot in as a security forces female” but noted her performance declined upon return from deployment, due to her experience of MST; the applicant stated in her personal appearance that her family told her she was “standoffish” upon her return from deployment and she stated she tried “push everything away and keep a smile on my face”.  There is evidence, based on the applicant’s EPRs, that the applicant’s performance declined significantly upon return from her deployment. There is evidence the applicant’s experience, in service, of MST may have mitigated her discharge. 

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Based on a review of the applicant’s records and consideration of her testimony during the personal appearance hearing, there is evidence the applicant’s experience, in service, of MST may have outweighed her 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 ((7)(a) -(7)(r) of this memorandum. 

The Board considered the following applicable factors listed in paragraphs (7)(a) -(7)(r) and concluded the following aspects about the applicant’s case:

(7)(a).  The applicant’s candor.  The applicant presented all information relating to her discharge very candidly, thoroughly addressing both the positive and negative aspects of her time in service.

(7)(b).  Whether the punishment, including any collateral consequences, was too harsh.  Similarly situated airmen with misconduct like the applicant’s misconduct of one-time drug us, typically receive a less severe discharge characterization.

(7)(c).  The aggravating and mitigating facts related to the record or punishment from which the veteran or Service member wants relief.  The applicant’s experience of sexual assault mitigates the misconduct based on the nature of the misconduct considering the applicant’s overall service.

(7)(d).  Positive or negative post-conviction conduct, including any arrests, criminal charges, or any convictions since the incident at issue.  The applicant provided evidence of over a decade of positive contributions to the community and work performance.

(7)(e).  Severity of misconduct.  The applicant’s misconduct consisted of a one-time drug use, that did not include any victims or violence.

(7)(f).  Length of time since misconduct.  The applicant’s misconduct occurred 16 years ago, this is significant amount of time for which the applicant was correct her behavior and recover from her in-service misconduct.

(7)(g).  Acceptance of responsibility, remorse, or atonement for misconduct.  The applicant took full responsibility for her misconduct.  She was apologetic and provided evidence to demonstrate her contributions to her community to atone for her actions.

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously approve the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge characterization to General, to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority, and to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 2B.

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 inequitable. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall change to a General discharge, the narrative reason for separation shall change to Secretarial Authority and the reentry code shall change to 2B. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 18 January 2023.  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)