AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00013	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 26 February 2021 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization.

The applicant requested the board be completed based on a records only review.  The applicant was not represented by counsel.    

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 Counseling.  His misconduct included:  failure to go, absence without authority, and dereliction of duty.

The applicant contended his discharge was improper and inequitable.  He contended the discharge was in violation of AFI 36-3208, violated his due process rights, command abused their authority, he was the victim of reprisal, and his unit was a hostile work environment.  Furthermore, he contended the command did not take his mental health into consideration prior to administering adverse actions against him.  Finally, he contended there is no evidence his rebuttal and response to adverse actions reached higher authorities. 

A review of the applicant’s record revealed that over the course of approximately 18 months the applicant was issued multiple Letters of Counseling and Reprimand for various misconduct incidents including failure to go, dereliction of duty, and disrespect toward his leadership.  In his responses to the administrative actions the respondent often indicated he was being targeted by his leadership and/or there was miscommunication in his unit about the details of the alleged misconduct.  He claimed he was often mistreated including complaints of being allergic to chemicals used in his duty section, and having to perform physical training sessions in steel toe boots.  The applicant also claimed he filed a complaint with the IG but did not provide any evidence of the outcome of the complaint.  Finally, the applicant submitted a copy of his training record with his application indicating he was experiencing training issues and/or deficiencies.  

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 contend that a condition or experience may have excused or mitigated their misconduct or discharge?  
The applicant contended his discharge was inequitable and should be upgraded to honorable because he was not properly evaluated for mental health issues during his separation physical.  He further contended he as was not allowed to schedule a follow-up for further evaluation of a high self-reported PTSD score and there is substantial doubt his discharge would have remained the same had this error not been made.

2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 
There is no evidence the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD during his time in service.  Based on the available records and the applicant’s testimony, there is no evidence the applicant exhibited any clinically significant indicators of PTSD or any other mental health condition during his time in service. 

3. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
There is no evidence the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD or any other mental health condition in service.  There is no evidence a mental health condition caused or mitigated the misconduct that led to the applicant’s discharge. 

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 
Because no error or injustice was identified in the processing of the applicant’s case with regard to consideration of his mental health conditions, including during his separation physical, and there is no evidence that a mental health condition mitigated or excused the applicant’s discharge, the applicant’s discharge 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 did not find any evidence of error or impropriety.

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 characterization of service shall remain, the narrative reason for separation shall remain, and the reentry code shall remain.  The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 6 May 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)