AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00079	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 4 April 2014 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General Discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions). 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 multiple Article 15s, a vacation of suspended nonjudicial punishment, multiple Letters of Reprimand, and a Letter of Counseling.  Her misconduct included:  On divers occasions, without authority, Fail to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty, bldg. 8517; failed to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty, bldg. 15510; negligently failed to perform assigned tasks in a timely manner; failed to make updates in MilPDS in a timely manner; failed to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty; failed to report to appointed place of duty at the time prescribed; disrespectful to SNCO by interrupting, rolling her eyes, and walking out of the office prior to completion of being dismissed.

The applicant stated that her separation was “fast-tracked” and she did not get a true mental health screening. She stated that this made the discharge unfair and unbalanced. 

The DRB reviewed the applicant's entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. It determined that, through the administrative actions taken by command, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior.  The applicant contended she did not get a true mental health screening during her time in service and this made her discharge unfair. Based on review of the applicant's mental health records, the applicant self-referred to the Mental Health Clinic and participated voluntarily in an intake assessment and follow-up sessions. The records indicate the applicant was afforded all appropriate mental health treatments and evaluations during her time in service that other similarly situated Airmen received. The records reveal the applicant was diagnosed with traits of a personality disorder. The applicant's personality traits likely caused her behavior and misconduct issues in service and are considered incompatible for military service, as a personality disorder is an unsuiting condition that would result in an administrative discharge. The applicant's misconduct may have been caused by the condition, but the condition itself was not the reason for discharge. The applicant was discharged due to misconduct. 

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 “Fast-track separation without a true mental health screening was never questioned or identified; therefore the character of service was never fair or balanced according to the actions of my immediate chain of command, Air Force mental health provider, and the United States Air Force.” 

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

The applicant stated in her personal statement “The second visit I told the doctor how all of this has been weighing on my mental health and everything is taking a toll on me” referencing disciplinary actions and medical problems.  Based on a review of the applicant’s records, there is evidence the applicant attended 2 sessions with a mental health provider during her time in service. The evidence reveals the applicant reported occupational stress and a general desire to be allowed to leave the Air Force to focus on business ventures with her husband. There is evidence the applicant received the diagnoses of “occupational problem” and “narcissistic personality traits” during her time in service.

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

There is evidence the applicant exhibited and endorsed features of a personality disorder during her time in service. The applicant’s personality disorder traits likely caused her behavioral and misconduct issues in service and are considered unsuiting and incompatible for military service. Personality disorders and traits are conditions of a developmental nature- they are pervasive, stable, persistent, and often resistant to treatment. This condition may explain the applicant’s misconduct, but it does not mitigate the misconduct that led to the applicant’s discharge. 
The applicant submitted her 2021 VA rating decision as evidence; 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. At the “snapshot in time” of the applicant’s service, there is no evidence the applicant had any unfitting mental health conditions that caused or mitigated the misconduct(s) which led to the applicant’s discharge.

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Because the applicant’s condition does not mitigate her discharge, it does not outweigh 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: 

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 did endorse features of a personality disorder during service. However, personality disorders are unsuiting mental health conditions that are incompatible with continued military service, non-compensable, and result in an administrative discharge.  Although the applicant's personality disorder traits may explain the behaviors that led to her discharge, it does not excuse nor mitigate it. Therefore, relief is not warranted in this case.

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade her 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 (Minor Infractions)”, and the reentry code shall remain 2B. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 21 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)