AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2021-00559	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 5 October 2006 with a Bad Conduct Discharge after being convicted of Wrongful use of cocaine and making a false official statement during a Special Court-Martial.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, via video teleconference using Zoom on 24 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 and counsel stated that the member was brought up on welfare as a child, surrounded by drug addicts and didn’t learn to read until he was 12 years old. They stated that he had a difficult transition upon arriving at his first duty station but was managing. They explained that he learned through a blood drive that he had Leukemia, he became depressed and in a weakened state of judgment, he used cocaine. 

The applicant stated that the USAF would be proud of his post service activities as he’s earned an associate’s and bachelor’s degrees, a pilot’s license, and is now enrolling in college in pursuit of an MBA. The applicant provided testimony that he supports veteran’s organizations and was recently honored by a county sheriff for his support to their office. He also stated that he’s self-employed and owns his own financial services firm.

During the personal appearance, the applicant stressed that the relief requested is strictly based on clemency. The applicant stated that he felt the discharge was proper and equitable. The applicant stated that once he found out that he had Leukemia, he gave up and hung out with the wrong crowd. The applicant and counsel spoke of the applicants post service activities. The applicant concluded that he was sorry and has been trying to make up for what he did in the past. He said that this discharge was a black mark in his life and wanted to get rid of it. 

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 found sufficient evidence to grant the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to an administrative discharge. Specifically, the board felt that the applicant has served as an upstanding citizen of his community for the almost 15 years since his discharge. Additionally, the Board determined that his post-service activities, as well as the absence of any adverse information regarding his conduct post service, confirmed the applicant’s rehabilitation. 

LIBERAL CONSIDERATION:

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 but makes no claims or contentions regarding having any mitigating mental health condition(s) or experiences in service that may have caused, excused, or mitigated the misconduct(s) that led to his discharge.  During the personal appearance, the applicant confirmed that he was not contending any mental health issues. 

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 the following with regard this applicable factor: 

(6)(b). Relief should not be reserved only for those with exceptional aptitude; rather character and rehabilitation should weigh more heavily than achievement alone.  An applicant need not, for example, attain high academic or professional achievement in order to demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation to support relief.
The applicant demonstrated that, through his success in life and the absence of any repeated infractions in the 15 years post-service, he has been rehabilitated.

Additionally, the Board considered the following applicable factors listed in paragraphs (7)(a)-(7)(r) of the “Wilkie memo:”
 
(7)(d).  Positive or negative post-conviction conduct, including any arrests, criminal charges, or any convictions since the incident at issue;
There were no arrests, criminal charges, or any convictions identified in the applicant’s record presented to the Board in the 15 years post-conviction. 

(7(f).  Length of time since misconduct;
It has been over 15 years since the misconduct occurred. 

(7)(g).  Acceptance of responsibility, remorse, or atonement for misconduct;
The applicant demonstrated his remorse for his actions, apologized, and took full responsibility for his actions that resulted in his court-martial and subsequent discharge.

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to approve the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Under Other Than Honorable Conditions and to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority. It did not 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. However, the applicant met the criteria for an upgrade to an administrative discharge based on clemency, and the board felt it was warranted. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall change to “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, the narrative reason for separation shall change to “Secretarial Authority” and the reentry code shall remain 2B. 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)