AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00026	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 24 February 2011 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General Discharge for Completion of Required Active Service. 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 applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, via video teleconference using Zoom on 17 May 2022. No witnesses were present to testify on the applicant’s behalf. 

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, a Letter of Reprimand, and a Letter of Counseling.  His misconduct included:  Wrongful use of marijuana; apprehended for underage drinking; failed to report for duty on time; and traveled at 100 mph in a 70 mph zone in a government vehicle.

The applicant through counsel contended that the discharge was both procedurally and substantively defective. The applicant believes that the discharge was unfair then and still is now. The applicant explained that the discharge has served its purpose and so it should be corrected.  The applicant requested a teleconference board and had additional material and evidence to present.

During the personal appearance hearing, the applicant through counsel clarified that they were seeking an upgrade through liberal consideration. When they were asked about their claim of a procedurally and substantively defective discharge, the counsel stated that during discharge the member’s MH issues were not considered. He explained that the drinking and substance abuse was not taken into account during the discharge, and there should have been more emphasis put on rehabilitation.
 
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 acknowledged the applicant’s success since leaving the Air Force. However, there was no evidence to indicate the applicant was unaware of the Air Force policy of zero tolerance for illegal drug use.  Also, the applicant’s record indicated that the applicant’s chain of command referred the applicant to Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment on multiple occasions.  This indicates that his leadership offered the available assistance for the applicant during his time in service.

The Board found the negative aspects of the applicant’s willful misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of his military service. The discharge received by the applicant was deemed appropriate. 

The applicant’s request for a change of re-entry code to allow for re-enlistment could not be supported due to current policies. Under DoDI 6130.03, Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services, under Learning, Psychiatric, and Behavioral Condition, the applicant’s reported history of mental health conditions or disorders prior to and during service are considered disqualifying conditions for induction into military service. 

LIBERAL CONSIDERATION:

Due to the applicant’s contentions of a mental health condition, 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 “other mental health” box on the application but did not elaborate on a mental health condition and did not provide additional detail in his application regarding a mental health condition. During the personal appearance, the applicant through counsel contended that liberal consideration should be applied based on the fact that the member’s drinking and substance abuse prior to and during service was not considered during the discharge. The counsel stated that there should have been more emphasis on the member’s rehabilitation during service. 

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

Based on the available records, there is no evidence, records, nor testimony provided by the applicant to substantiate that the applicant requested or received any mental health treatment in service. There is no evidence, based on the available records, the applicant exhibited any clinically significant indicators of a mental health condition during his brief time in service.

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

There is no evidence a mental health condition caused or mitigated the misconduct(s) that led to the applicant discharge.

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Because the applicant discharge is not mitigated or excused, it is also 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: 

b.  Relief should not be reserved only for those with exceptional aptitude; rather character and rehabilitation should weigh more heavily than achievement alone.  An applicant need not, for example, attain high academic or professional achievement in order to demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation to support relief.

Although the applicant has improved his life, has been successful, and has discontinued the activities that resulted in the discharge, the board was not able to find any evidence of impropriety or inequity within the discharge process. Therefore the applicants request could not be granted. 

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. 

After a review of the applicant’s record, the board determined that Air Force policies call for similar consequences for service members with the same misconduct.  Similarly situated service member would receive similar punishment. The board concluded that this discharge was fair and the infractions committed are commensurate with character of the discharge the applicant received. 

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 remain Completion of Required Active Service and the reentry code shall remain 2B.  The Board recommends the applicant exercise his right to directly appeal the DRB’s decision to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records by requesting clemency based on post-service activities and accomplishments. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 17 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)