AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00240	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 12 January 2022 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Entry Level Separation for Fraudulent Entry. 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 appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference using Zoom on 20 September 2022. The applicant’s mother and father were the witnesses 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 contended that he experienced unfair practices by the medical waiver office, as they ignored evidence to support a waiver for retention in the military. Additionally, the applicant stated he was disqualified due to his pre-service mental health history.  However, the administrative process to discharge him was based on the justification that the applicant’s condition may be reasonably expected to interfere with or prevent satisfactory performance of military duties. The applicant claimed he had evidence that would show he did not have the condition identified in his records and the criteria for discharge were not appropriate for his case. Lastly, the applicant contended that the AFI used for separation required that a member deliberately conceal a medical condition and the applicant claimed the evidence he provided would demonstrate that was also not the case in his situation.  
 
During the personal appearance, the applicant’s father provided testimony that the Air Force failed his son by discharging him. He explained that the pre-service medical records that the Air Force reviewed concerning the applicant’s condition had no context or notes to justify the diagnoses.  The father explained that the applicant was only seen for 15-20 minutes in the ER, one time, and received the diagnosis. The father and applicant contended that this was not enough time to make an accurate diagnosis. The father also contended that his son should not have been discharged for fraudulent entry and explained that his son did not knowingly or intentionally omit information nor lie while in MEPS.

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. The board noted that the applicant did not sufficiently explain a reason for omitting the multiple pre-service Emergency Room visits, when the MEPS entry screening questionnaire requires applicants to acknowledge whether they have ever visited an Emergency Room.  The applicant stated that he was unaware his Emergency Room visit led to a diagnosis and that is the reason he did not disclose the mental health diagnoses at MEPS.  Additionally, the applicant failed to provide evidence to indicate that he did not have the condition that was diagnosed in his record.  The applicant had no medical records to indicate that he was cleared of or never had the diagnosis that was documented in his record.  And, after the applicant acknowledged, during his testimony, that he had visited the Emergency room, he stated that he did not pursue a diagnosis from a different provider that would indicate that the diagnosis in his record was resolved. The DRB concluded that the applicant’s medical records show he has an unresolved medical issue that prevent him from reentering the military.  

In accordance with AFI 36-3208, Airmen are in Entry Level status during the first 180 days of continuous active military service.  If separated during this time, they normally receive an Entry Level Separation that is not characterized.  Because it is Air Force policy to not characterize this type of separation, the Board found no basis of an inequity or impropriety to upgrade his discharge to Honorable.  

The applicant’s request for a change of re-entry code to allow for re-enlistment could not be supported due to current policies. Under DoDI 6130.03, Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services, under Learning, Psychiatric, and Behavioral Condition, the applicant’s reported history of mental health conditions or disorders prior to and during service are considered disqualifying conditions for induction into military service. 

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 applicant did not identify any mental health conditions in Block 21 on his DD Form 293, Application for Review of Discharge.  He contended “a change is requested because I have never had a history of suicide/mental health condition.” Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant was discharged due to evidence of a pre-service mental health condition, specifically suicidal ideation.  The applicant’s medical records show the applicant was seen in the Emergency Department on two occasions pre-service for acute stress related to psychosocial stressors.  The applicant contended to military providers that he did not recall the first visit to the Emergency Department which is why he did not disclose it, and when he was reminded of the visit, he contested the contents of the provider’s documentation (written on the day of evaluation). The applicant also stated, “as I am not a MH professional, I have attached to this letter, a write-up by a 26-year professional of the MH career field.” The letter included was by the applicant’s father, who was not the applicant’s treating provider during, before, or after the applicant’s time in service, as the applicant has made it clear he has never received any mental health treatment. The applicant’s parent was advocating on behalf of his son, not in the role of the applicant’s mental health provider. 

The Board notes that receiving mental health treatment pre-service is not, in and of itself, disqualifying for military service. Being emotionally distressed requiring police intervention and Emergency Department services is not, necessarily in and of itself disqualifying. However, based on a review of the records, the applicant exhibited, pre-service, difficulty with coping skills and help seeking behaviors; there is no evidence the applicant (even after Emergency Department visits) sought or received assistance to mitigate or improve his distress tolerance, coping skills, or receive a formal evaluation from an objective mental health provider to rule out mental health conditions that resulted in the Emergency Room services.   

The applicant’s condition and the events that caused them, occurred prior to service, and there was no evidence of service aggravation.  Thus, the Liberal Consideration criteria did not apply, because the condition did not occur during service.  
The applicant’s actions that contributed to his discharge included his lack of disclosure of his medical history as well as misconduct that resulted in administrative action.  The basis for determining fraudulent entry was likely based, in part, on the applicant’s lack of candor and/or insight. On question #157 of the DD2807, the applicant denied ever being seen in an ER.  The applicant also did not disclose his pre-service medical history of asthma and a broken arm.  The board also noted the applicant received an LOR, while his waiver was under review, for wearing PT attire off base and falsely stating he had approval to wear PT attire off base.   

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) and (7)(a)-(7)(r) 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 3K.

CONCLUSION:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service, service and medical record, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was proper. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain “Entry Level Separation”, the narrative reason for separation shall remain “Fraudulent Entry” and the reentry code shall remain “2C”. 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)