AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00163	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 31 October 2016 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General Discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions). The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his 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 multiple Letters of Reprimand, and a Letter of Counseling.  His / Her misconduct included:  Failure to be present for mandatory open ranks inspections during July and August;  used profanity in his running SMU back to the dormitory; fell asleep in the bathroom during class; late to PT formation three times in two weeks. 

The applicant requested an upgrade so that he may reenlist. He explained that he was still maturing at the time and learning a job he did not select. He stated he now understands that he could have learned and made adjustments through appropriate means. The applicant continued to say that this discharge has caused tremendous hardship because he comes from a military family legacy. He believed that an upgrade would help give him an opportunity to move forward. 

The DRB recognized the applicant was 19 years old when the discharge took place, the same age as many of the first-term Airmen, who properly adhere to Air Force standards of conduct.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge, therefore the applicant’s discharge will not change.

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 have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? 

The applicant requested to have his discharge reviewed for a change to his re-enlistment code. The applicant stated on his application “At the time I was maturing and just learning a job I didn’t select not knowing the impact or outcome. Now I realize that I could have learned and made changed through the appropriate channels.” The applicant then contends “I want to be able to correct my path moving forward and I believe with an upgraded discharge will give me that opportunity. Even if I cannot enlist, if I was upgraded it would help with my well-being and I may be able to get post 911 for education. I have spent almost a year on active duty and have nothing to show for it except the memories of time spent with my brothers and sisters due to minor infractions.” The applicant did not check any of the boxes related to a mental health condition on the application or make any mental health contentions on his application.  

2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 

There is evidence the applicant sought and received mental health care during his time in service. There is evidence the applicant received the diagnosis of adjustment disorder during his time in service. Based on a review of the records, there is also evidence the applicant had a pre-service history of ADHD. There is no evidence of service aggravation of the applicant’s EPTS condition of ADHD. 

3. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 

The applicant was discharged due to misconduct (minor infractions). The applicant did not make any mental health contentions in his application, however, the applicant responded to one of his LORs with the statement “I received an LOR for going to the bathroom and sleeping, this is what I told my instructor and my fellow classmates who asked where I was, as I was concerned about losing my career for being unfit for duty for mental problems, and when the instructor asked me what’s going on I told him I did not want to talk about it, and that I’d rather just take the punishment.” The applicant’s Record of Administrative Training Action revealed that during his time in service the applicant “continually displays a lack of military bearing and respect for authority. He has multiple disciplinary infractions (3LOR/1LOC). All efforts to include a disciplinary review board and multiple one-on-on mentoring/counseling sessions from instructors, MTLs, First Sergeant, and Det 6 Superintendent failed to yield a positive change in behavior and military bearing.  The medical records reveal applicant’s mental health provider noted the applicant was exhibiting symptoms of distractibility and lack of focus that were not consistent with depression or anxiety. The applicant’s records revealed his diagnosis of ADHD was an EPTS condition with no evidence of service aggravation, and although it may explain applicant’s misconduct, it does not mitigate 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.

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny 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 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 “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 1 August 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)