AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00169	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 4 April 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, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.

The applicant was 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 Reprimand.  His misconduct included:  on or about 11 Jan to on or about 27 Jan, without authority, absented himself from place of duty; with intent to deceive, make a false official statement stating that he was still on leave and the extension had been approved; made multiple false official statements, specifically, when asked if he knew where an Airman was, he said no, which was false; falsified a document and withheld critical information by stating he knew nothing about the night in question when another Airman was arrested for DUI, when he was with that Airman that night.

The applicant contended that the discharge was improper and inequitable because his Commander rushed the separation in order to prevent him from voluntarily separating because of chronic insomnia and mental health disorders.

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. 

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 contended “I feel my General Discharge under honorable conditions was improper and inequitable due to my former commander rushing my separation at the time in order to undercut my attempt to voluntarily separate due to decertification of my AFSC from unresolved chronic insomnia and mental health disorders which were beyond my control.” 

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 for symptoms related to poor sleep quality and quantity. There is evidence the applicant received the diagnosis of “phase of life problem”.

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

The applicant’s testimony in his written statement is contradictory to the evidence in the applicant’s records available for review. The applicant contended in his written statement provided with his application that his AFSC (and right to bear arms) was decertified due to “unresolved chronic insomnia and mental health disorders beyond my control.” Based on review of the records, the applicant’s AFSC was withdrawn due to the applicant making false official statements. The applicant also contended in his written statement “I ultimately decided to separate due to the fact that I did not want to be in anything but Security Forces and could begin to pursue higher education as a civilian, which was one of the main reasons I joined the military. During my time at my new post at the base gym, I had also been receiving treatment for chronic insomnia and generalized anxiety I developed over the years which I am still currently receiving to this day.” Based the on the available records, the applicant failed to meet the suspense required for retraining. Also based on review of the available medical records, including post-deployment evaluations and mental health records,  there is no evidence the applicant received any medical care or mental health care during his deployment, for any condition. There is evidence the applicant sought mental health services related to sleep difficulties secondary to his “Panama” work schedule. The records revealed the applicant reported significant improvements in his sleep after his AFSC was withdrawn. There is evidence the applicant received the diagnosis, in service, of “phase of life problem”; there is no evidence the applicant was diagnosed with insomnia or anxiety during his time in service. The applicant did not submit any evidence or records of his post service treatment for chronic insomnia or anxiety and there is no evidence of the applicant receiving treatment for these contended conditions with the VA. Based on the nature of the misconduct(s) that led to the applicant’s discharge, it is unlikely that the mental health conditions contended by the applicant would have caused, mitigated or excused the applicant’s misconduct(s).  There is no evidence of a nexus between the applicant’s in-service mental health conditions and the misconduct(s) for which he was discharged.

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Because the applicant’s discharge is not mitigated, 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.

(6)(h).  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.

The applicant claimed he was trying to voluntarily separate, due to decertification of his AFSC from unresolved chronic insomnia and mental health disorders, however, during service; he was diagnosed with a phase of life problem, not insomnia nor anxiety. 

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 29 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)