AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2021-00608	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 30 September 2011 with a Bad Conduct Discharge after being convicted of:  failure to report a change of dependent’s status/residence to DFAS; with the intent to deceive, making a false official statement to an SNCO; falsely making a claim in an amount over $500 for BAH with dependent rate, and falsely making a claim against the U.S. in the amount less than $500 for Family Separation pay during a Special Court-Martial.

The applicant was not represented by counsel.    

The applicant initially chose to have a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), but due to personal matters, was not able to attend. The President of the AFDRB authorized the review of the discharge, per DOD 1332.8, E3.2.6.2.  The applicant did not have a prior records only review, and was thus 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 a vacation of suspended nonjudicial punishment.  Her misconduct included:  With the intent to defraud, offer a certain writing in words and figures, the signature of a Master Sergeant, on a Force One Lending loan application; between on or about 30 Jun and on or about 4 July, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty.

The applicant stated that she was diagnosed with PTSD due to MST and that her actions during service were a direct result of the sexual assault. She stated that during her time in service, she did not have the skills to cope, and therefore made very bad decisions. 

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 member did not submit evidence of rehabilitation or any other improvement to prove she has been successful post-service. Due to the insufficient evidence, the board could not 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 contended “I have been diagnosed with PTSD due to MST. I know my action during services are a direct result of the sexual assault.” 

2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 

There is no evidence or records the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD in service. There is evidence the applicant sought and receive mental health treatment intermittently during her time in service and was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The applicant reported her symptoms were resolved each time she ceased utilizing mental health services and, per the available records, did not endorse any symptoms or clinically significant indicators of PTSD at any time in service. 

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

There is no objective evidence in the military records provided to support the applicant’s experience of military sexual trauma and/or having received a diagnosis of PTSD in service. The applicant’s most serious misconduct(s) were premeditated, thus excluding them from liberal consideration. 

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Because the condition or experience does not excuse the 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 each factor: 

(6)(h).  Requests for relief based in whole or in part on a mental health condition, should be considered for relief on equitable, injustice, or clemency grounds whenever there is insufficient evidence to warrant relief for an error or impropriety.

The DRB did not find any objective evidence to support the applicant’s experience of MST or having received a diagnosis of PTSD in-service. The board determine the discharge was proper and equitable. It also considered clemency in this case, however, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support an upgrade. The DRB concluded the applicant’s punitive discharge by a Special Court-Martial was appropriate based on the facts and circumstances of the case and there was no sufficient basis, as an act of clemency, to change the discharge.

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge characterization, 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 a Bad Conduct Discharge, the narrative reason for separation shall remain “Court-Martial (other) and the reentry code shall remain 2L. If the applicant can provide additional information to substantiate her contentions, or provide evidence for which to base clemency, the Board recommends she exercise the right to make a personal appearance before the DRB or directly appeal the DRB’s decision to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.  

The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 9 March 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)