AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2021-00585	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 24 June 2020 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General Discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions). The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code. The Board was conducted on 8 February 2022.

The applicant was not represented by counsel.    

The applicant initially chose to have a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), but the applicant did not respond to the scheduling request for the appearance.  Due to the lack of response from the applicant, the President of the AFDRB authorized a records only review of the discharge, per DOD 1332.28, E3.2.6.2.  The applicant did not have a prior records only review, therefore, the board deemed him eligible for one.  

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 and multiple Letters of Reprimand.  His misconduct included:  showed up to details one hour late; vaping in Stairwell of dormitory; failed to show for mandatory open ranks for a second time; traveled outside of the 60 mile radius while under base restriction measures; failed/reused to un-cuff his sleeves after being instructed by MTLs to do so; failed to report to remedial training; and failed to comply with AFI 36-2903 by not shaving prior to reporting to duty.

The applicant stated that he was dealing with mental health issues at the time and his attempts to seek professional help were “vetoed” by his MTLs and First Sergeant. He states he was told that either he was faking it, that there were others worse off than him, or that going to the doctor would be wasting people’s time. The applicant explained that upon going before the Commander, he was told to remove his service coat, unbutton his blues shirt, and take his shoes off to be patted down. He stated that, when asked why they were doing this, they said “We are just making sure you’re not wearing a suicide vest or carrying weapons.” He continued to say that this was interesting, as the Airmen who were going to see the Commander with him, did not have to be patted down, and he was the only black individual in the group. Additionally, he stated that once the Commander had made the decision, he was even denied the ability to attend his out-processing appointments. The applicant concluded that he was treated like a criminal, not an Airman.

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. It 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. The applicant did not endorse any clinically significant mental health symptoms at any time, to any medical or mental health provider during his time in service, including his Separation Health Assessment. The applicant did not present, nor could the board find any evidence, that there was a nexus between a mental health condition and the misconduct that would mitigate his discharge. The discharge received by the applicant was deemed to be appropriate. 

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 contended that “Upon completing my Technical Training, I was not assigned a base or given orders. My instructor told me this was the first time this had happened to another Airman and I would not be assigned a base until about 2 weeks from me being discharged. During that time, I was dealing with a mental health issues, the 'invisible wounds'”. The applicant provides no substantive testimony about the mental health issues he was dealing with or how these issues caused or contributed to his misconduct. 

2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 
The applicant contended that he was denied the opportunity to seek mental health treatment. But there is no evidence in the applicant’s record that the applicant sought or received any mental health care or diagnosis during his time in service. The applicant did not provide any substantiating documentation to support his claim of mental health issues in service. 

3. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
The applicant was discharged due to misconduct. The applicant did not provide any evidence or records to substantiate his claim that a mental health condition caused his misconduct; thus his condition does not mitigate not excuse his discharge.

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 
Because the applicant’s condition does not excuse his discharge, it does 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 concluded the following with regard to these applicable factors: 

(6)(j).  Similarly situated Service members sometimes receive disparate punishments.  A Service member in one location could face court-martial for an offense that routinely is handled administratively across the Service. While a court-martial or a command would be within its authority to choose a specific disposition forum or issue a certain punishment, DRBs should nevertheless consider uniformity and unfair disparities in punishments as a basis for relief. 
The DRB determined that the consequences that the applicant received were not disparate or unfair.  And, a similarly situated Airman with a similar pattern of misconduct, in a four month period of time, while in an initial Air Force specialty code training program, would receive similar consequences.  The applicant had seven infractions documented with administrative actions and nonjudicial punishment within 4 months’ time during the beginning of his Air Force career. The board determined that this pattern of misconduct warranted a General Discharge.
 
1.  Does the available record support PTSD (or other mental health condition) existed at the time of applicant’s military service?  
No. The applicant did not endorse any clinically significant mental health symptoms at any time, to any medical or mental health provider during his time in service. The applicant stated he was “vetoed” when he asked to see mental health, however, he did not report anything during his Separation Health Assessment either. 

2.  Were these conditions present at time of misconduct? There is no evidence to indicate the applicant had a mental health condition during service.

3.  Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?  Because there is no evidence of a mental health condition, there was no condition that may have mitigated the misconduct.

4.  Did the applicant received mental health and/or medical evaluations prior to their administrative separation?  No

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 characterization of service shall remain “General”, the narrative reason for separation shall remain “Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the reentry code shall remain 2B. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 10 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)