AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2021-00593	
					
SUMMARY: 
The applicant was discharged on 25 March 2015 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions).  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 17 February 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’s record of service included an Article 15, a vacation of suspended nonjudicial punishment, and multiple Letters of Reprimand and Counseling.  His misconduct included:  failure to go, drunk on duty, and associating with individuals involved in criminal activity. 

The applicant contended that his supervisor did not support him and abused his power.  He stated at the time of his misconduct he was in a tumultuous phase of his life.  His pregnant wife pursued divorce, a court hearing was held and he was not present, and he was subsequently ordered to pay child support.  He stated that he got behind on his child support payments which resulted in garnishment of his wages and loss of his driver’s license.  He further claimed he had to get a second job to cover the child support payments.  He had to work late hours at his second job which resulted in him oversleeping and caused him to be late for his military duties.  At this time he also started drinking, which resulted in alcohol issues.  He claimed that he sought help through his leadership and the ADAPT Program.  He stated that his leadership knew he was having problems but chose to punish him instead of helping him because they ultimately wanted him out of the Air Force.

A review of the records revealed the applicant had multiple incidents of misconduct including failure to go, drunk on duty, and associating with questionable individuals involved in dangerous and potential criminal activity.  He received multiple Letters of Counseling and Reprimand, was punished under Article 15, and had suspended punishment vacated.  

The DRB determined that, through the administrative actions taken by the chain of command in this case, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  It found the seriousness of the applicant’s willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of his service.  Therefore, the DRB found the applicant’s contentions without merit and there was no evidence of impropriety or inequity. 

LIBERAL CONSIDERATION:
Due to the applicant’s contention of a mental health condition, 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/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 “other mental health” box on his application and  there is evidence the applicant was command referred to ADAPT subsequent to his alcohol related incidents, and there is evidence the applicant intermittently sought mental health treatment related to occupational frustration.  

 2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service?
There is evidence the applicant was command referred to ADAPT subsequent to his alcohol related incidents, and there is evidence the applicant intermittently sought mental health treatment related to occupational frustrations. 

3. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
There is evidence the applicant was command referred to ADAPT subsequent to his alcohol related incidents, and there is evidence the applicant intermittently sought mental health treatment related to occupational frustrations.  These conditions and experiences do not excuse or mitigate the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge. 

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge?
Although there is evidence the applicant was command referred to ADAPT subsequent to his alcohol related incidents, and there is evidence the applicant intermittently sought mental health treatment related to occupational frustrations, these experiences do not outweigh the 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 (6) (a)-(6) (l) of this memorandum and did not find any evidence of error or impropriety.

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 or 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, the narrative reason for separation shall remain, and the reentry code shall remain.  The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 28 February 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)