AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-000105	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 17 November 2021 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General Discharge for Misconduct (Drug Abuse). The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge characterization, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.

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 Letters of Reprimand, and multiple Letters of Counseling. Her misconduct included:  Failed to communicate that the member did not have a plan for transportation to duty; failed to maintain professionalism, customs, and courtesies when sending text messages to supervisor; failed to show to place of duty at the time prescribed, had a hickey on her neck; on phone for non-work related reasons while at work; and use of marijuana.

The applicant explained that she had a problem with the neighbor downstairs. Specifically, she stated that this security forces member showed racist tendencies towards her significant other. She explained that there were false reports of domestic violence and repeated calls to the landlord. She stated that at the time of the incident, she was not under the influence and the UA proved this. She added that they chose to prosecute her because of her association with an individual. Additionally, the applicant took issue that the 214 states drug use because at the time, her UA was negative. She concluded that the discharge is an embarrassment and a bar to her benefits. 

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. Although the member did not test positive for marijuana in that instance, the command determined, through the preponderance of evidence standard, that the applicant did use marijuana. The Board saw no evidence to indicate the applicant was unaware of the Air Force policy of zero tolerance for illegal drug use. The characterization and Narrative Reason received 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 “Other Mental Health” and “Reprisal/Whistleblower” on her application. The applicant stated on her application she was diagnosed with a non-specific depressive disorder during her time in service. 
 
2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 

The applicant stated on her application she was diagnosed with a non-specific depressive disorder during her time in service. There is evidence the applicant sought and received mental health care during her time in service. Based on review of the available records, the applicant received the diagnoses of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, and major depressive disorder during her time in service. 

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

The applicant was discharged due to drug use. The applicant’s record contains contradictory and conflicting information to her statements. The applicant contended in her application statement “At the time of the incident I was not under the influence nor, when I tested, did I show any use. They chose to persecute me because of my association with an individual.” The applicant disputes that she committed the misconduct that led to her discharge, which would render mitigating factors null, as the applicant contends she did not commit the misconduct and thus does not need mitigation.  Based on a review of the records, the applicant has acknowledged that she did use marijuana during her time in service. The applicant stated in her application “during the course of my enlistment I was diagnosed with a non-specific depressive disorder.” The presence alone of a diagnosis or mental health condition does not mitigate misconduct. Based on the evidence and available records there is no nexus between the applicant’s mental health condition and the documented misconduct that led to her discharge. There is no evidence a mental health condition caused the misconduct that led to the applicant’s discharge. 

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Because the applicant’s discharge is not mitigated by a mental health condition, 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. 

j.  Similarly situated Service members sometimes receive disparate punishments.  A Service member in one location could face court-martial for an offense that routinely is handled administratively across the Service. While a court-martial or a command would be within its authority to choose a specific disposition forum or issue a certain punishment, DRBs should nevertheless consider uniformity and unfair disparities in punishments as a basis for relief. 

The applicant stated that she was persecuted because she was associated with an individual. However, similarly situated service members would receive the same punishment. Drug use is zero tolerance and unless the member meets retention criteria, the member is discharged. This punishment is not disparate. It is a proper and equitable discharge. 

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 (Drug Abuse)”, and the reentry code shall remain “2B”. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 17 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)