AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00264	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 24 June 2020 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge characterization and Narrative Reason, 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 not represented by counsel.  The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), 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, multiple Letters of Reprimand, and multiple Letters of Counseling.  His misconduct included being derelict in performance of his duty, vaping in the dormitory, and violating base restriction.  

The applicant requested a change to his character of service, reentry code, and the narrative reason for separation.  The applicant did not provide a reason for the upgrade request, but the applicant’s mother provided a statement on his behalf to express her concern for his mental health during the applicant’s service and post service.  She stated that she noticed a change in her son’s behavior in June 2020, which continued to deteriorate as time progressed.  She stated that he told her how his leadership in his squadron was treating him.  He told her that they did not offer any assistance or resources.  She stated that she was heartbroken when he was reclassified from the loadmaster career field on graduation day.  She stated that after the reclassification, she noticed more drastic changes in the applicant’s behavior. She stated that his hygiene habits were incongruent with military professional dress and appearance, and standards.  She stated that he began vaping while underage and was not getting adequate rest.  She stated that his experience worsened, leading to his discharge.  She stated that when he came home, the behavior continued, which caused her to be deeply concerned that he may need professional counseling.  The applicant included two character statements in his application.  Both character statements discussed who the member was and how they knew him before joining the military.  Both acknowledged the member’s incident and that he should be given a second chance.

The applicant did not identify any contentions about the equity or propriety of the circumstances surrounding his discharge.  The DRB conducted a thorough review of the applicant’s service and medical records to determine if there were any inappropriate actions taken by the applicant’s chain of command regarding his discharge. The DRB determined that the administrative actions taken by the chain of command were appropriate.  The chain of command took action, that was within its authority, based on the applicant’s misconduct.  The Board concluded the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions he made during his Air Force career.    

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 contended “Upon completing my Technical Training, I was not assigned a base or given orders. My instructor told me this was the first time this had happened to another Airman, and I would not be assigned a base until about 2 weeks our from me being discharged. During that time, I was dealing with a mental health issue, the 'invisible wounds'”. The applicant did not provides any substantive testimony about the “mental health issues” he was dealing with or how these issues caused or contributed to his misconduct.
 
2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 

There is no evidence the applicant sought or received any mental health care or diagnosis during his time in service. The applicant did not provide any substantiating documentation to support his claim of “mental health issues” in service.

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

The applicant was discharged due to misconduct. The applicant did not provide any evidence or records to substantiate his claim that a mental health condition caused his misconduct; thus his condition does not mitigate not excuse his discharge.

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

Because the applicant’s condition does not excuse his discharge, it does not outweigh the discharge.

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 / 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 25 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)