AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00016	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 18 November 2021 in accordance with AFI 36-3207 with a General for Unacceptable Conduct. The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge characterization.

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 a Letter of Reprimand, and multiple Letters of Admonishment.  Her misconduct included:  Participated in a house party with friends which was in violation of multiple lawful orders and host nation regulations related to the pandemic; mishandled opioid based tramadol prescription by allowing another person access to the medication; engaged in an unprofessional relationship with an instructor as a student. 

The applicant contended that the discharge was unjust. She stated that her health records indicated her commander’s intentions to separate her.  The applicant further explained that the decision to separate her happened during a change of command and the original commander made the decision rather than the commander that had just taken the position, even after she was told that the new commander would be considering her side of the story. She also stated the commander failed to consider that the administrative paperwork was a direct result of her reporting threats by her former partner and witnessing an assault on a friend. She continued to explain that she was only trying to protect herself and other females of the unit. She stated that no mental health or family advocacy referrals were ever made on her behalf. The applicant highlighted that the new squadron commander and the NATO AWACS Component/CC had recommended an honorable discharge. 

The Board conducted a thorough review of the applicant’s record.  The applicant's records indicate she had a mental health condition and that the applicant sought mental health treatment while in service.  The applicant’s service records indicate that her mental health condition impaired her ability to successfully perform her duty. The Board determined that based on evidence of an existing mental health condition in her service and medical records, there was considerable impact of the condition on her ability to perform her duty.

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? 

There is evidence the applicant both sought on her own and was command referred to mental health treatment during her time in service. 

The applicant contended “Additionally, [her commander] failed to ever consider the fact that my administrative paperwork was the direct result of my reporting threats by my former partner and witnessing an assault on my friend by a co-worker.  He only ever considered what mistakes I had made and failed to recognize that I was trying to protect myself and the other females in the unit.  No referrals to Mental Health or Family Advocacy were ever made on my behalf.” The applicant’s contention that no mental health or Family Advocacy referral were ever made on her behalf is contradictory to the evidence in the applicant’s medical and administrative records.

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

There is evidence the applicant both sought on her own and was command referred to mental health treatment during her time in service. There is evidence the applicant was command referred to ADAPT services three times during her time in service. There is evidence a Family Advocacy Program referral was placed on behalf of the applicant during her time in service.  

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

The applicant does not contend that a mental health condition excused or mitigated her discharge, however the applicant’s contention that no mental health or Family Advocacy referral were ever made on her behalf is contradictory to the evidence in the applicant’s medical and administrative records. A review of the available records revealed more than 150 mental health chart notes during the applicant’s time in service.  

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

The applicant contends that her health records have information that indicate the basis for her discharge.  Based on nature of her misconduct and the evidence of ongoing mental health treatment in her record, the condition outweighs her 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)(f).  Changes in policy, whereby a Service member under the same circumstances today would reasonably be expected to receive a more favorable outcome than the applicant received, may be grounds for relief.
(6)(g).  The relative severity of some misconduct can change over time, thereby changing the relative weight of the misconduct in the case of the mitigating evidence in the case. 

The applicant received administrative punishment for attending a house party during a period of very restrictive guidance regarding COVID-19 mitigation actions.  Since the applicant's misconduct occurred,
DOD and international COVID policies have changed.  Similarly situated Airmen who took the same action would not face the same consequences based on current Air Force policies.

FINDING:  The DRB voted 2 to 1 to approve the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge characterization to Honorable. It voted unanimously to deny any change to the discharge narrative reason or the reenlistment eligibility code.
 
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 inequitable. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall change to “Honorable”, the narrative reason for separation shall remain “Unacceptable Conduct”, and the reentry code shall change to 2C. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 15 May 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)