AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00095	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 24 Oct 2017 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge In Lieu of Trial By Court-Martial. The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization and a change to the discharge narrative reason.

The applicant was 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 through counsel requested an upgrade of the discharge character and narrative reason due to inequity and impropriety.  The applicant contended that the discharge was improper because it was a single incident of misconduct during years of honorable service. Additionally, the applicant felt that the  misconduct was mitigated because he was self-medicating due to an undiagnosed behavioral health issue. 
The applicant also contended that the discharge was inequitable because the command completely ignored the member’s behavioral health issues. They continued by stating that the evidence clearly demonstrated that the drug use was mitigated by his depression, anxiety and PTSD. They concluded that the applicant was unjustly stigmatized and prejudiced as a drug abuser because of the diagnosed behavioral issues. 

There was significant evidence in the applicant's record to indicate the experience of PTSD. The applicant's PTSD mitigated his misconduct, but did not totally excuse his use of illegal drugs which is against the Air Force's Zero tolerance policy for drug use. Therefore, the applicant's discharge characterization was deemed overly harsh given the evidence in his service records. However, applicant's misconduct was such that it did not rise to the standards of an Honorable discharge, therefore the Board determined that a General Characterization was most 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, through counsel, contends in addition to the applicant’s diagnosis of a substance abuse issue, he was also diagnosed with “Adjustment Disorder with a Depressed Mood which led to an Anxiety Disorder diagnosis and ultimately to a diagnosis of PTSD.” 

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

The applicant, through counsel, contended in addition to the applicant’s diagnosis of a substance abuse issue, he was also diagnosed with “Adjustment Disorder with a Depressed Mood which led to an Anxiety Disorder diagnosis and ultimately to a diagnosis of PTSD.” There is evidence the applicant received substance use treatment during his time in service. There is evidence the applicant received mental health care during his time in service and was given the diagnoses of adjustment disorder with depressed mood
and stimulant use disorder, mild, cocaine during his time in service. There is no evidence or records to substantiate counsel’s claim that the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD during his time in service; based on the records, the applicant denied any and all mental health concerns until he was Command referred to ADAPT due to a positive urinalysis for cocaine at which time the applicant endorsed mental health symptoms of anxiety and depression. The records reflect the applicant did endorse a history of childhood and combat trauma but indicated he did not want to further discuss either. 

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

The applicant’s counsel contended the applicant was discharged due to a “single incident of misconduct”; however, the applicant acknowledged multiple incidences per week of using cocaine and tested positive for cocaine on five drug tests. The applicant maintained that he did not knowingly or willingly use cocaine for two rounds of ADAPT treatment. Not until his discharge and punishment was determined did the applicant reveal that he had, in fact, been using cocaine multiple times per week, in conjunction with maladaptive alcohol use for many months as part of the “flight crew culture.” There is evidence the applicant may have been self-medicating mental health symptoms with his combination of alcohol and cocaine use. The applicant did not follow-up with mental health treatment consistently during his time in service and it was noted by the provider that he may have embellished some of his presentation after his repeated positive drug screens, compounding his legal issues. However, there is evidence the mental health providers observed indications of an underlying mental health condition possibly contributing to his substance use. 

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Same as 3-the Board’s discussion of the merits of applicant’s case will be applicable. 

There is evidence a mental health condition may have contributed to the applicant’s substance use, which led to his discharge; there is no evidence the applicant’s lack of candor was caused by a mental health condition. Based on review of the applicant’s records, there is evidence the applicant’s mental health condition may outweigh 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 this 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.

There is evidence that the applicant did have mental health conditions and he may have been self-medicating with the alcohol and cocaine use. Additionally, it was observed by the member’s mental health providers that he had indications of an underlying mental health condition that may have contributed to his substance use. He endorsed childhood and combat related trauma but did not wish to divulge any details. 

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to approve the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to General. It voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority or change the reenlistment eligibility code.

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 inequitable. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall change to “General”, the narrative reason for separation shall remain “In Lieu of Trial By Court-Martial”, and the reentry code shall remain 2B. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 22 June.  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)