AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00056	
					
SUMMARY:  The applicant was discharged on 19 February 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, a change to the discharge narrative reason and associated separation code, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.

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 an Article 15, a vacation of suspended nonjudicial punishment, and multiple Letters of Reprimand and Counseling.  His misconduct included:  dereliction of duty, false statements, disrespect towards an NCO, and failure to go.  

The applicant contended he was unfairly removed from the Air Force.  He graduated Basic Training as an Honor Graduate and was the Dorm Chief for his flight.  He was removed from service after only 6 months of technical training due to a series of unfortunate events.  He claimed he was actively seeking medical attention for chronic migraines due to untreated and misdiagnosed Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI), a severely injured knee, and a back injury.  He further claimed he was recommended for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), but instead of being medically separated he was removed administratively for misconduct without prior notification of his separation date and nowhere to live.  He also claimed he sought mental health treatment, filed an IG complaint, as well as an Article 138 complaint against his commander.

A review of the applicant’s record revealed he had multiple disciplinary problems while attending technical training.  He was issued multiple Letters of Reprimand and Counseling, was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, and had suspended punishment vacated.  He claimed to have inadequate representation from his Area Defense Counsel and requested he be assigned different counsel.  He also asserted he should have been processed for medical separation, however, the applicant declined further treatment options and was found fit for duty by his medical providers.  

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 contend that a condition or experience may have excused or mitigated their misconduct or discharge?  
The applicant checked the “TBI” and “other mental health” boxes on his application.  The applicant contended his record would show he was actively seeking medical attention for chronic migraines due to untreated and misdiagnosed TBIs, a severely injured knee, and a back injury and that he was recommended for a MEB.  Yet rather than be medically separated, he was removed under an administrative separation for misconduct.

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 and received the diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct.  Based on the available records, the applicant was referred to mental health by his first sergeant and came voluntary to mental health to discuss anger and difficulty adjusting to his living conditions and conflict with leadership. 

There is no evidence the applicant was diagnosed with or received any treatment for a TBI during his time in service.  There is evidence the applicant sought treatment during his time in service for migraine headaches and reported feeling irritable and angry.  The mental health provider noted the applicant was exhibiting features of a personality disorder and presented as oppositional and aggressive, requiring an escort to MTF appointments due to his potential for violent outbursts.  Based on review of the available medical records, the applicant reported frustration with being denied a medical board, after he refused treatment and rehabilitation, for his knee and stated to his mental health provider he would try for a medical board for migraines and continue to file complaints against his leadership.  There is no evidence, based on the available records, that the applicant experienced a TBI during his time in service nor had any unfitting conditions related to a TBI during his time in service. 

Regarding the applicant’s concurrence with his VA diagnoses, 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.

3. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
The applicant was discharged due to misconduct.  There is no evidence of a mitigating nexus between a mental health condition and the misconduct that led to the applicant’s discharge.  While there is evidence the applicant was referred by his command and attended three sessions at the mental health clinic for difficulty adjusting to the military, the applicant did not contend, nor is there any evidence to substantiate, that a mental health condition caused or mitigated the misconducts that led to his discharge. 
Furthermore, there is no evidence or records the applicant sustained or received treatment for a TBI during his time in service, and thus does not mitigate or excuse his discharge.

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 
Because the applicant’s contended conditions do not mitigate or excuse his discharge, they do not outweigh 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) of this memorandum and did not find any evidence of error or impropriety.

Finally, a request to change an administrative discharge to a medical discharge is outside the scope of authority of the DRB.  Should the applicant elect to continue to pursue a medical discharge, he is encouraged to exercise his right to appeal the DRB’s decision to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable, to change the discharge narrative reason and associated separation code 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 UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS - (GENERAL), the narrative reason for separation and corresponding separation code shall remain MISCONDUCT (MINOR INFRACTIONS), and the reentry code shall remain 2B.  The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 3 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)