AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00090	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 10 April 2015 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 an Article 15 and a vacation of suspended nonjudicial punishment.  Her misconduct included:  Wrongfully contacted a commissioned officer after being ordered not to contact this person; on divers occasions, willfully engaged in an unprofessional relationship with a commissioned officer; failed to obey an order given by a SNCO, to remove all photographs of the commissioned officers from her quarters. 

The applicant stated that she was separated for minor infractions as a young Airman who was being assaulted by her Lieutenant. 

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 was unable to find sufficient evidence in the record and through testimony, which would substantiate the applicant’s claim of assault. The Board determined that, through the administrative actions taken by the chain of command, the applicant had an opportunity to change her negative behavior. The discharge received was deemed 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 box for “sexual assault/harassment” on her application and section 3 of the application states: I am seeking to upgrade my character of discharge. I was separated for minor infractions as a young airman who was being assaulted by my LT.” 

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

The applicant did not submit any evidence or records from her time in service. In her narrative statement she explained, “I am seeking to upgrade my character of discharge. I was separated for minor infractions as a young airman who was being assaulted by my LT.” There is no evidence in the applicant’s military or medical records of any assault or trauma caused by an assault. There is no evidence the applicant reported or was receiving treatment related to assault (physical or sexual) that occurred during her time in service in the documents submitted by the applicant. Based on the document submitted by the applicant, there are inaccuracies either reported by the applicant or recorded by the provider.  This calls in to question the overall reliability of the content in the document. The document indicates the applicant completed four years in service, and “completed her contract”, neither of which are accurate. Nonetheless, the document submitted by the applicant does not provide any information about the applicant’s contended experience of assault during her time in service. Notably, the applicant reported to the provider her experiences of traumatic events, which did not include assault (physical or sexual). 

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

The applicant contended she experienced “being assaulted by my LT”. In the applicant’s response to her article 15, it is noted the applicant stated “I apologize for breaking the No Contact Order you gave me and warned me not to break. I do not have any excuses nor do I wish to blame anyone else for my behavior, for I am a capable young Airman who was fully aware of what situation she was getting herself into.” The burden of proof is upon the applicant to substantiate her claims. And while it is possible the applicant experienced assault during her time in service, there is no objective evidence, and no testimony to provide relevant information, to substantiate a mitigating nexus between the misconduct that led to the applicant’s discharge and the applicant’s contention of assault. 

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. 

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)