AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00125	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 09 December 2008 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge after 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 appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, via video teleconference using Zoom on 27 September 2022. No witnesses were present to testify on the applicant’s behalf. 

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 Article 15s, a vacation of suspended non-judicial punishment, a Letter of Reprimand, and multiple Letters of Counseling.  His misconduct included dereliction of duty, disrespecting an NCO, and unlawfully striking his wife in the face with a phone and his hand. 

Through counsel, the applicant contends his discharge characterization is inequitable. He stated that his entire service record outweighs his misconduct, and his discharge should be honorable.

The applicant believed he deserved a second chance despite his misconduct in order to receive an Honorable discharge.  The DRB determined that, through the administrative actions taken by the chain of command in this case, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  It found the seriousness of the applicant’s willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of his service.  

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 clinical psychologist.  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 did not check any of the boxes in section 21 of the application; however, during the personal appearance, the applicant through counsel, contended he had depression (contended as “other mental health”) and a neurocognitive disorder from his time in service.  

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

There is no evidence or records the applicant sought or received any mental health services during his time in service. The applicant confirmed during his personal appearance that he never sought any mental health services during his time in service and never considered using mental health services.  The applicant endorsed that he experienced depressed mood subsequent to receiving disciplinary action and feeling unsupported by his leadership. There is no evidence or records the applicant sustained or reported to have sustained TBI or cognitive injuries due to jet fuel inhalation during his time in service.
   
3. Does that condition, or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 

A review of the applicant’s DD214 revealed the applicant was discharged due to misconduct (minor infractions).  The applicant’s discharge was processed as a dual-action case for his chronic low back pain. During the personal appearance, the applicant, through counsel, contended the applicant’s neuro-cognitive disturbance and reported depressed mood contributed to the misconduct that led to his discharge. The applicant provided testimony that his neuro-cognitive impairment, at times, caused him to forget things like where to go and scheduled appointments. However, there is no evidence the applicant reported any indicators of neurocognitive symptoms or indicators during his time in service. There is evidence the applicant reported to VA providers in 2009 that he “hit his head” several times while deployed but denied any lasting injury.  No timeline of these injuries was provided in the records available for review and the applicant, in his testimony at the personal appearance, attributed his neurocognitive decline to fuel fume inhalation. No evidence was available or provided by the applicant to substantiate this contention. Based on a review of the available record, there is no evidence of a nexus between the applicant’s contended in-service mental health conditions and the misconducts that led to his discharge.  

4. Does that condition, or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Because the applicant’s conditions do not mitigate the applicant’s discharge, the applicant’s discharge 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.”  

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 and equitable. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service, the narrative reason for separation, and the reentry code shall not change. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 30 September 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)