AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00045	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 22 August 2007 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization and a change to the discharge narrative reason.

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 Article 15s.  His misconduct included:  assault, false official statements, conspiracy, and damage to military property. 

The applicant contended he had undiagnosed PTSD after deploying that resulted in his misconduct.  Prior to his deployment his conduct was great according to him.  He requested an upgrade to his discharge and a change to his narrative reason to disability.  He submitted his VA rating letter reflecting he has been diagnosed with service-connected PTSD.  

A review of the applicant’s record revealed that while deployed he ran a military vehicle into a pole.  He then falsified documents regarding the accident and coerced other Airmen to do the same.  For the misconduct he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ.  Additionally, in a separate incident, he assaulted another Airman by striking him in the face.  He was punished a second time under Article 15, UCMJ.   

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 characterization should be changed to honorable due to undiagnosed/untreated PTSD after his first deployment.  He claimed his period of service before the deployment was great conduct and all misconduct occurred after the deployment.
2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 
There is no evidence or records the applicant was diagnosed with or exhibited any clinically significant indicators of PTSD during his time in service.  There is evidence the applicant was evaluated by mental health upon his return from his first deployment based upon his responses to his post-deployment screening. The applicant reported having marital and family conflict.  Based on the evidence submitted by the applicant, he reported to the mental health provider he had plans to try cross training into another career field and if he could not cross train then he planned on departing the military.  The applicant was offered Life Skills Services and Military One Source information and declined both. 

3. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
The applicant was discharged due to misconduct.  The applicant’s first documented misconduct was for damaging a military vehicle while “joy riding” in a deployed location, causing damage to the vehicle, and failing to report damages by making false statements on the vehicle report log.  The applicant’s second documented misconduct was for unlawfully striking another Airman.  In accordance with the “Wilkie memo,” relief is generally more appropriate for non-violent offenses.

Additionally, the applicant submitted post service treatment records to substantiate his claim of a PTSD diagnosis.  The presence of a mental health condition does not, in and of itself, mitigate or excuse misconduct.  Based on the available evidence and records, the applicant’s mental health condition, as likely as not, developed post-service.  The VA, operating under a different set of laws than the military, is empowered to offer compensation for any medical or mental health condition with an established nexus to military service, without regard to its impact on a member’s fitness to serve, the narrative reason for release for service, or the length of time that has transpired since the date of discharge.  The VA may also conduct periodic reevaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating as the level of impairment from a given condition may improve or worsen over the life of the veteran.  At the “snapshot in time” of the applicant’s service, there is no evidence the applicant had a mental health condition that caused or mitigated the misconduct that led to 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) and paragraphs 
(7)(a)-(7)(r) of this memorandum and did not find any evidence of error or impropriety.

The DRB determined that, through the administrative actions taken by the chain of command in this case, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The board concluded the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions he made during his Air Force career.
    
FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable and to change the discharge narrative reason.  The DRB also voted unanimously to deny changing the reenlistment eligibility code to 2C or 3K.  Furthermore, requests to change administrative discharges to medical disability separations are outside the scope of the DRB.  If the applicant can provide additional information to substantiate his contention the board recommends he exercise the right to appeal the DRB’s decision to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.  
 
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, the narrative reason for separation shall remain and the reentry code shall remain.  The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 9 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)