AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2021-00623	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 12 September 2017 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General for Misconduct (Minor Infractions). The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his reenlistment eligibility code.

The applicant was not represented by counsel.    

The applicant requested the board be completed base on a records review 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 to complete inprocessing checklist on time; failed to turn in FIP tracker on due date; was not prepared for fitness test by not having a copy of his profile; failed dorm room inspection; on multiple occasions, displayed a lack of effort toward assigned duty, training and tasks, observed repeatedly and excessively wasting duty hours talking and using phone; failed to notify chain of command of his situation in a timely manner; arrested for first degree harassment, sent repeated inappropriate text messages to a 17 year old high school student who he had met as a representative of the USAF during recruiter’s assistance visit; reported to duty 45 minutes late. 

The applicant stated that the reasons for discharge were described as failure to adapt to situation at hand. He explains that one of the biggest contributors to the discharge was his arrest for harassment. However the judge threw out the case because the accuser didn’t have a case. He continues to explain that the damage had already been done and he was already discharged. The applicant contended that his state of mind due to two deaths in a short period of time was the reason for the bad decisions. He explained that he tried to seek mental help; however, he took too long to get started. The applicant wished to get back in and wants a second chance. He concluded that over the past 4-5 years, he’s developed much better coping strategies. 

The DRB acknowledges that the applicant expressed he has had success since leaving the Air Force.  Although the applicant expressed his desire to reenlist, the applicant did not provide any additional documentation or evidence that he has recovered from the misconduct that led to his discharge.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant any changes to the discharge. The Board deemed that the discharge received by the applicant 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 contended, “the reason(s) for which I was discharged are best described as a failure to adapt to situations at hand.” 

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

The applicant detailed in his personal statement that he was having difficulty dealing with the death of his grandmother and his dog (bereavement) which occurred in/around March 2017. Based upon a review of the records, the applicant’s pattern of misconduct began prior to the applicant’s family member deaths.  Five of the applicant’s seven documented acts of misconduct occurred prior to events that the applicant stated were the cause of his misconduct. There is evidence the applicant sought supportive mental health treatment beginning in July 2017.  The mental health provider who treated the applicant indicated that the condition was “problems of adjustment to life-cycle transitions”.

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

The applicant was discharged due to misconduct. Based on the available records, there is no evidence a mental health condition caused the misconduct that led to the applicant’s discharge. A records review indicates the applicant was diagnosed with ADHD prior to his time in service. This is an EPTS condition and not considered under liberal consideration. 

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Because there is no evidence of a mitigating mental health condition, the applicant’s discharge is not outweighed. 

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)(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. 

Airmen with misconduct similar to the applicant’s have received similar punishment.  The applicant’s consequences are appropriate and in line with current Air Force policies based on governing Air Force instructions. The applicant’s leadership acted within policies dictated by current Air Force instructions providing opportunities for rehabilitation using counselling and reprimands.  In the applicant’s case, the infractions started shortly after arrival at his first base indicating that was unable to adapt to the military lifestyle. 

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 “General”, the narrative reason for separation shall Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the reentry code shall 2B. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 14 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)