AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	CASE NUMBER
FD-2022-00055	
					
SUMMARY:  The applicant was discharged on 15 April 2007 in accordance with AFI 36-3209 with a General discharge for Unsatisfactory Performance.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge characterization.

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 a Letter of Counseling for an unauthorized absence from a Unit Training Assembly (UTA).  

The applicant contended she was sexually assaulted while deployed in support of recovery operations after Hurricane Katrina.  She claimed an officer in her unit assaulted her at gun point.  Upon return to their home station the applicant would frequently see the officer and he would corner her in her workspace.  Based on this she stopped coming to drill weekends and was discharged for unsatisfactory participation.  The applicant claimed she never reported the assault because she feared her assaulter would harm her.   

A review of the applicant’s record revealed she had nine unauthorized absences from UTA weekends in her unit.  The applicant indicated she briefly received mental health treatment and services in 2013 but had since discontinued any care.  The applicant claimed since her discharge she has found the courage to return to school and has since received a nursing degree.  

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 with training on mental health issues associated with military sexual trauma.  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 during her deployment to the Mississippi Gulf Coast to assist with Hurricane Katina, she was sexually assaulted by an officer in her unit.  She did not report the assault to anyone because she thought she would receive retaliation by the assaulter and other higher officials in the unit.  The applicant also claimed she stopped attending monthly drills because of her fear of running into her assaulter.  

2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 
The evidence suggests the applicant experienced some traumatic event during her time in the military and her statements are corroborated by what she reported to the VA.  

3. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
The applicant noted in her application she relocated to another state and can now use mental health services to address the issue in person without feeling ashamed because she didn’t know anyone there.  Before the move she was ashamed because she worked with many of the doctors and nurses on the medical staff of the VA while serving in the military.  There is evidence the applicant reported to providers she lost interest in her job due to depression, began to isolate, and stopped attending drill subsequent to her experience of sexual assault, and fear of her perpetrator. There is evidence the misconduct that led to the applicant’s discharge may have been caused by the applicant’s experience of sexual assault.  
 
4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 
There is evidence the applicant’s experience of sexual assault may have caused and mitigated the misconduct that led to her discharge. There is evidence to substantiate the applicant’s claim that her experience of sexual assault outweighs her 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) of this memorandum, and concluded 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.

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to approve the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge characterization to Honorable.  The DRB voted unanimously to deny changing the discharge narrative reason and the reenlistment eligibility code.  
 
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 remain, and the reentry code shall remain.  The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 1 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)