AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00023	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 7 May 2015 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General Discharge for Misconduct (Drug Abuse). The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization and a change to the discharge narrative reason.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference using Zoom on 12 July 2022. No witnesses were present to testify on the applicant’s behalf. 

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 Letter of Counseling.  His misconduct included: wrongful use of marijuana and failure to go to appointed place of duty. 

The applicant contended that the discharge narrative reason is unfair and an unjust representation of his 10 years of service.  He does not deserve to be judged for the rest of his life for one incident. Additionally, he explained that he was seeing mental health for PTSD while in service; however, the provider at the time failed to take proper actions, which allowed him to continue to self-destruct.

During the personal appearance, the applicant stated that he was constantly involved with death during service and was outside the wire during deployments which caused the PTSD. He talked about how his career field ate their own and was a culture that did not condone mental health help. He detailed how he refused the help due to those issues until his wife finally talked him into seeking help. He stated that when he did go to mental health, he felt the provider was inexperienced, couldn’t relate to his issues, and just didn’t give him what he needed. The applicant also took issue with his ADC representation. He stated he felt coerced into waiving his board hearing and was told that he had no chance of remaining in because it was a zero tolerance policy. Additionally, he was told his situation did not matter and that his actions were what mattered. The applicant concluded that the narrative reason was not fair, as it didn’t represent the years of service he committed to his country. He felt that the current narrative was making it hard to find a job. 

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. The Board recognized the applicant served over 9 years before the discharge was initiated, but concluded the seriousness of the applicant’s willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of his service. The applicant knew what he was doing was wrong but continued to use even when there were other options available. Instead of seeking help, the applicant chose to solve the mental health issue his own way so that he could continue with his career as he chose to do so.  

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 “The ‘Narrative Reason for Separation’ on my DD FORM 214 is an unfair/unjust representation of my 10 years of service to our country. When providing my ‘proof of service’ to potential employers, I do not deserve to be judged for the REST OF MY LIFE, based off of one incident that occurred in my 10 years of HONORABLE service. Additionally, prior to my discharge, I was in mental health treatment on Dover AFB for combat PTSD, where I disclosed (approximately 2 years prior to my discharge) I was using marijuana to cope with my symptoms. My mental health provider in that time, failed to take proper actions to provide me the help I needed, and allowed me to continue to self destruct”. 

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

There is evidence the applicant sought and received mental health care during his time in service. There is evidence, based on review of the records, the applicant received the diagnosis of PTSD and adjustment disorder during his time in service. 

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

The applicant was discharged due to drug use (marijuana). The applicant’s service records reveal a history of pre-service marijuana use. Based on the available evidence in the applicant’s records along with the applicant’s testimony in his personal appearance, there is evidence the applicant was having difficulty adjusting to return from deployment and was being assessed for symptoms of PTSD intermittently. The applicant reported he chose to use drugs in a way that was incompatible with military service, which may explain the applicant’s drug use, but it does not mitigate the applicant’s misconduct. The applicant reported, during his personal appearance testimony, that his performance and duties were-at no time during his time in service- impacted by either his substance use or his symptoms of PTSD. The applicant also stated during his personal appearance testimony that he knows what he did was wrong and he feels he should not be punished for the rest of his life for a mistake he made.

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Based on review of the applicant’s records and consideration of the applicant’s testimony at his personal appearance, the applicant’s mental health condition does not outweigh the applicant’s discharge due to drug use.

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 board recognized the applicant’s mental health condition during service and understood that this may explain the drug use; however, it determined that the condition did not outweigh the negative impact of the drug use.  

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 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 Board recommends the applicant exercise his right to directly appeal the DRB’s decision to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) by requesting clemency based on post-service activities and accomplishments. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 20 July 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)