AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2021-00613	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 15 Oct 2021 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 10 February 2022.

The applicant was not represented by counsel.    

The applicant requested the board be completed based on a records only review.

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 multiple Letters of Reprimand, and multiple Letters of Counseling.  His misconduct included: failed all dorm inspection criteria, with a history of consistent unsatisfactory inspections; failed to go to appointed place of duty at the time prescribed; failed to shave; failed to use technical orders while performing maintenance on aircraft engines; failed to report to place of duty at the time prescribed; failed to adhere to grooming standards; failed to report for duty, showed NCOs sent to wake him up disrespect and contempt, kept quarters in degraded state leading to health and welfare concerns; and presented unsatisfactory dorm room according to standards after a scheduled inspection-earning third LOR for same infraction.   

The applicant did not make any contentions or identify the reason for his upgrade request in his application.  

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. The Board determined that, through the administrative actions taken by the chain of command in this case, the circumstance surrounding the applicant’s discharge were not unfair or improper. The Board concluded the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions he made during his Air Force career and the discharge characterization was 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 checked the boxes on the application for “other mental health” and “sexual assault/harassment” and “reprisal/whistleblower”. The applicant provided selective mental health records from his time in service that indicate the applicant received a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood.  

The applicant did not provide any evidence, records or testimony regarding military sexual assault or sexual harassment, and there is no objective evidence or records of sexual assault or sexual harassment during the applicant’s time in service. 

2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 
There is evidence the applicant received mental health treatment during his time in service. The Applicant received the diagnosis Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood in service. There is evidence the applicant experienced adjustment issues subsequent to oral surgery in BMT that resolved (2019). There is evidence the applicant had experienced difficulty adjusting to military life, expectations, and culture, in addition to experiencing family stressors/loss upon completion of tech school (2020), and appropriately sought mental health support. The mental health providers noted the applicant was, at times, willing to engage in the use of adaptive coping skills, and would often have periods of 3-4 months with no service utilization.   

3. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
The applicant was discharged due to misconduct, there is no evidence the applicant’s mental health condition mitigated or excused the misconduct that led to 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 his 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 the applicable factor: 

(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. 
Similarly situated Airmen, with a similar pattern of misconduct to the applicant’s service record, would be subject to similar administrative actions.  Based on the applicant’s service record, the chain of command appropriately discharged the applicant with a General discharge. 

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 14 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)