AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00068	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 19 February 2016 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General for Misconduct (Drug Abuse). 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 a Letter of Reprimand.  His misconduct included:  Wrongfully possessed Trenbolone Acetate, Stanozolol, and Letrozole, all forms of illegal testosterone. 

The applicant contended that the discharge was inequitable because it was a single incident of self-medication due to undiagnosed Major Depressive disorder, hyperthyroidism, and a vitamin D deficiency. The applicant also stated that he mistakenly self-diagnosed himself with low testosterone and because of that, he tried to self-medicate. 

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. Additionally, there is nothing in the record to indicate the applicant was unaware of the Air Force policy of zero tolerance for illegal drug use. The applicant stated that he did not want to go through the embarrassment of talking to a health provider. This does not excuse nor mitigate the illegal use of prescription drugs. Thus, the discharge received by the applicant was determined 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 contended, “my discharge was inequitable because it was based on a single incident of self-medicating due to undiagnosed depressive disorder at the time along with hypothyroidism and vitamin D deficiency. I mistakenly self-diagnosed myself as having low testosterone. Rather than go through the embarrassment of talking to a provider which I felt impossible to do so at the time due to my condition, I tried to self-medicate myself.”  

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

The applicant contended he had “undiagnosed major depressive disorder at the time along with hypothyroidism and vitamin D deficiency.” Based on review of the applicant’s records, there is no evidence the applicant had a diagnosis of hypothyroidism or vitamin D deficiency during his time in service. There is evidence the applicant sought and received mental health care during his time in service for issues related to stress, his OSI investigation and divorce, and was given the diagnoses of “occupational problem” and “disruption of family by separation or divorce”

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

The applicant contended “Rather than go through the embarrassment of talking to a provider which I felt impossible to do so at the time due to my condition, I tried to self-medicate myself.” Based on a review of the applicant’s medical, mental health, and administrative records, there is no evidence the applicant was unable to access a medical provider to address concerns regarding any health conditions; per the applicant’s records, he accessed care on more than one hundred documented occurrences during his time in service.  The applicant contends his misconduct was a single episode of self-medicating; per review of the applicant’s discharge package, the applicant was in possession of three substances for which he did not have prescriptions and was found to be in possession of multiple bags of pills and vials. The applicant sought and received mental health treatment upon the initiation of the OSI investigation.  Based on the available records, there is no evidence of a nexus between the applicant’s in-service mental health conditions and the misconduct for which he was discharged.

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Because the applicant’s discharge is not mitigated, 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 this pertinent factor: 

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 contended that the misconduct was due to undiagnosed mental and medical health conditions. After a thorough review of the records by the Boards Clinical Psychologist, it was determine that there was not a nexus between the member’s mental health condition and the misconduct. 

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 (Drug Abuse)”, and the reentry code shall remain 2B. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 13 June 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)