AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00202	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 23 December 2008 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge after misconduct. The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge characterization.

The applicant was represented by counsel.    

The applicant appeared and testified and testify before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, via video teleconference using Zoom on 4 October 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 an article 15, multiple Letters of Reprimand, and multiple Letters of Counseling. Her misconduct included failure to go at the time prescribed for duty. She failed multiple fitness assessments and received a ticket for exceeding the posted speed limit. 

The applicant requested an upgrade discharge to Honorable.  The applicant stated that she was sexually assaulted by a Senior NCO and Junior Airman while serving.  She stated that the Senior NCO forced himself on her after she volunteered to be the DD for Senior NCO.  She stated that while at a party that was hosted by an Airman, another Airman at the party pulled down his pants in front of the applicant and tried to force his privet parts into her mouth.  The applicant stated that her friend removed her from the situation and stated that the perpetrator did this kind of thing often.  The applicant stated that while she was sleeping over a friend’s house after clubbing that night, one of the guys their started to suck on her toes while she was sleeping.  The applicant stated that in all three instances she did not desire nor consent to any of the advances take by the three individuals.  She stated that as a result she felt completely broken and suicidal. She stated that on top the sexual trauma she was experiencing, she was also dealing with medical issues that caused her body to gain weight.  She stated that the weight gain caused her to struggle with her fitness test.  She stated that she started to suffer from PTSD, depression, and anxiety.  She stated that mental and physical health conditions made more difficult for her to pass her PT test.  

The DRB determined that, through the administrative actions taken by the chain of command in this case, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior.  The board concluded the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions she made during her Air Force career.    

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 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 checked the boxes on her application for “PTSD”, “other mental health” and “sexual assault/harassment”. The applicant, through counsel and testimony provided in writing and in her personal appearance, contended her experience of sexual assault contributed to her lapses in judgment during her time in service. 
 
2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 

The applicant contended she experience multiple sexual assaults during her time in service in 2008. There is evidence the applicant sought and received mental health treatment during her time in service due to stress related to divorce, an ill family member, and work stress. The records reveal the applicant received the diagnoses of partner relational problem and occupational problem (2007). There is no evidence the applicant was diagnosed with or exhibited any clinically significant indicators of PTSD during her time in service. 
3. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 

Per review of the applicant’s records and evidence submitted, the applicant reported she has been receiving “treatment for PTSD, Anxiety, Depression, Military Sexual Trauma, and suicidal thoughts since 2 June 2020”, twelve years post-discharge.  

The applicant contends in her written statement “the final failure to report, which I received an Article 15 for, was related to my grandmother’s death and sexual assaults.”  

The applicant also contends “my struggles with the fitness test were related to my medical conditions and sexual assaults. Both my medical conditions and sexual assaults led to weight gain, which exacerbated my struggles with the fitness test.” Based on the timeline provided by the applicant, her MST’s occurred in 2008. There is evidence in the applicant’s medical and administrative records of the applicant receiving medical and administrative counseling for her weight (related to “inappropriate diet and eating habits”) in July 2006. 

Based on the applicant’s testimony, her experiences of MST occurred in January, February and April of 2008. There is evidence the applicant’s pattern of misconduct persisted after this time period. There is evidence the applicant’s pattern of misconduct began before the applicant’s stated dates of experienced MST, and there is evidence the same misconducts continued after the applicant’s stated dates of experienced MST.  There is no evidence of a nexus between the applicant’s contended experience of MST and the misconducts that led to her discharge. 
4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

The applicant was discharged due to misconduct; there is evidence the applicant’s misconducts began prior to the applicant’s provided timeline of MST experiences and the evidence in the applicant’s medical and administrative records reveals misconduct of the same pattern and nature persisted after the applicant’s provided timeline of MST experiences. There is no evidence of nexus between the applicant’s contended MST experiences and her misconduct, thus the applicant’s discharge is 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 her 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 shall remain, the narrative reason for separation shall remain and the reentry code shall remain.   The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on XX October 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)