AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00046	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 5 June 2020 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 contended he was wrongly discharged due to his sexual orientation and gender identity.  He requested an upgrade to allow him access to GI Bill benefits.  

A review of the applicant’s record revealed he was verbally counseled on numerous occasions and also issued multiple Letters of Counseling and Reprimand, and had an Unfavorable Information File established.  As indicated in his discharge notification memorandum, his misconduct included disrespect to his leadership, dereliction of duty, and failure to obey orders.  His leadership reported he had a pattern of negating responsibility for his actions, minimizing his conduct, and failed to respond to the unit’s rehabilitation attempts.  

Additionally, the applicant claimed he filed an IG complaint against his unit.  The base legal office where he was discharged from verified the applicant did make an initial IG complaint, however, when the IG office attempted to follow up with him he did not respond.  Based on his failure to respond, the complaint was closed without action.

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 checked the boxes on the application for “other mental health,” “transgender,” and “reprisal/whistleblower.”  The applicant contended he was wrongly discharged due to his sexual orientation and gender identity. 

2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 
There is evidence the applicant sought and received mental health treatment during his time in service. There is also evidence the applicant received the diagnoses in service of anxiety disorder, unspecified. 

3. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
There is no evidence of a nexus between the applicant’s in-service mental health conditions and the misconduct for which he was discharged.  The applicant submitted select medical records with his application.  Based on review of the applicant’s entire medical record, he did explore gender identity with his mental health provider, but noted he did not identify as transgender and sought to find a sense of community

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 
After a thorough review of the service record and inputs from the board’s psychiatrist, the DRB found no conclusive indication that any mental health issues had a direct impact on the applicant's misconduct.  

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  it is consistent with military custom and practice to honor sacrifices and achievements, to punish only to the extent necessary, to rehabilitate to the greatest extent possible, and to favor second chances in situations in which individuals have paid for their misdeeds.  After a thorough review of the applicant’s record, the Board concluded there was no evidence the applicant was given the chance to rehabilitate himself after his misconduct was substantiated and before he was discharged.  The Board concluded that although there was a basis for discharge, the service characterization the applicant received was harsher when compared to other similarly situated Airmen and was therefore inequitable. 

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to approve 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.
 
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 Honorable, the narrative reason for separation shall change to Secretarial Authority, and the reentry code shall change to 2C. 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)