AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00054	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 8 December 2011 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Other). The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his 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 an Article 15 and a Letter of Reprimand.  His misconduct included:  maltreatment of Airmen (4), in that the member made detailed and repeated sexual comments about his spouse as well as that Airman; and driving while intoxicated

The applicant requested an upgrade to Honorable. He stated that he’d served nearly 18 years and didn’t deserve a General Characterizaiton.

The board noted that the member declined a discharge board by submitting a conditional waiver. This waiver indicated the possibility of a General discharge. 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 recognized the applicant served many years before the discharge, but concluded the seriousness of the applicant’s willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of his service. The discharge received by the applicant was deemed to be 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 for “TBI” and “other mental health” on his application however made no contentions in his applications regarding a mental health condition. The applicant contention is (in full) “I would like my UHC discharge be upgraded to Hon. I served nearly 18 years and didn’t deserve a discharge of UHC. I’ve since obtained a bachelor’s degree, an associate degree, currently employed by the VA, and also am a 100% disable by VA.” 

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

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

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

At the time of the applicant’s discharge, the applicant’s discharge was reviewed and processed as a dual-action case by SAF/MRBP. The Board’s task was to determine the appropriate disposition of the applicant, including characterization of his military service. As noted by SAF/MRBP on 1 Dec 2011 “After reviewing all available facts and evidence, the Board determined there was no causal relationship between the member’s medical condition and his misconduct, and that there were insufficient mitigating factors to disregard the disciplinary action.” The applicant did not provide any new evidence or testimony for this Board to consider. Also as noted in the SAF/MRBP decision memorandum, the VA, operating under a different set of laws than the military, is empowered to offer compensation for any medical or mental health condition with an established nexus to military service, without regard to its impact on a member’s fitness to serve, the narrative reason for release for service, or the length of time that has transpired since the date of discharge. The VA may also conduct periodic reevaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating as the level of impairment from a given condition may improve or worsen over the life of the veteran.

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 
At the time of the applicant’s discharge, his package was processed as a dual-action case.
The applicant did not provide any additional evidence or testimony for the Board to review. Based on the available records and the fact that the applicant’s mental health condition was considered at the time of his discharge, the board determined that his condition did not to outweigh the severity and egregious nature of his misconduct which led to 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 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 applicant selected TBI and other mental health check boxes on the application; however, the member did not make any contentions regarding either issue. 

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 Misconduct (Other), and the reentry code shall remain 2B. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 18 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)