AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00066	
					
SUMMARY:  The applicant was discharged on 11 September 2017 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of the discharge characterization 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 and a Letter of Counseling.  His misconduct included shoplifting and dereliction of duty.
  
The applicant made no contentions.  He requested an upgrade and change to his RE Code to allow him to reenlist in the military.  He admitted he did not serve his country “right” while in the Air Force and would like a second chance to prove he is a strong leader and dedicated member.  He claimed he was in a “rough place mentally” being away from his family.  He has now started his own family and would like the opportunity to serve again.

A review of the applicant’s record revealed that while attending technical training he had two separate incidents of misconduct.  He had his cell phone on his person while performing CQ duty, which was against school policy.  Additionally, he stole a pair of headphones from AAFES valued at approximately $44.  He waived his right to counsel and also waived his right to submit matters in response to the discharge notification.  

There was also evidence in the applicant’s record that indicated he self-eliminated from the Tactical Air Control Party course on the 2nd day of training and was recommended for reclassification.  However, due to his misconduct reclassification was denied and discharge was recommended.

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 stated in his application remarks that he was in a “rough place mentally” being away from his family.  He made no contentions regarding a mental health condition or any experience(s) that may have excused or mitigated the misconduct that led to his discharge.  He also reported that he was not overly down or depressed despite answers on a physical assessment questionnaire, and he denied any suicidal or homicidal ideations.  He stated that he was having a hard time transitioning to technical training status. 

2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 
There is no evidence or records, nor does the applicant contend, he had a mental health condition during his time in service. 

3. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
The applicant indicated he was experiencing difficulty being away from his family.  Being separated from one’s family during military training is a common military occurrence and while distressing, is not a mitigating mental health condition; and such separation would be expected to occur again should the applicant re-join the military.  Separation from one’s family to join the military is not an experience that would mitigate or excuse the misconduct that led to the applicant’s discharge.  

There is also no evidence the applicant sought or received any mental health treatment during his time in service.  Furthermore, there is no evidence the applicant exhibited any clinical significant features of a mental health condition during his time in service.  Therefore, there is no evidence a mental health condition caused or mitigated the misconduct that led to the applicant’s discharge. 

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 
Because the applicant’s discharge is not mitigated it is also not outweighed.

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.

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade the discharge characterization to Honorable or to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority.  The DRB also voted unanimously to deny changing 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 shall remain MISCONDUCT (MINOR INFRACTIONS), and the reentry code shall remain 2B.  The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 7 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)