AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00270	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 07 August 2015 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge after misconduct (drug abuse). 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 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.  His misconduct included wrongful use of marijuana.

The applicant does not make any contentions whether or not his discharge was improper or inequitable.  The applicant requested an upgrade to his discharge in order to receive GI benefits.

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 understood the applicant’s present service characterization renders him ineligible for Department of Veteran Affairs education benefits.  However, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.  

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 made no contentions; the applicant stated on the application “I am going to college with the opportunity to transfer to a four-year university to pursue my bachelor's degree in chemical engineering. I really need the GI Bill/ BAH benefit to secure stable housing in order to continue my education.”
 
2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 

There is evidence the applicant was command referred to ADAPT for both alcohol and marijuana misconduct(s) during his time in service. The applicant’s discharge notification revealed the applicant was “command referred to ADAPT due to an alcohol-related incident that occurred on 28 September and was evaluated on 2 October and receive a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate. A treatment team meeting (TTM) was completed on 7 October, and he began IOP treatment on 24 November. [The applicant] began Level I treatment on 2 December and completed Level 1 treatment on 20 January. A TTM was conducted on 29 January to transition him to Aftercare on 11 February. [The applicant] completed Aftercare on 26 March and a final TTM was completed and his ADAPT case was closed on 9 April. 
[The applicant] was command referred a second time to ADAPT after receiving a positive urinalysis for THC. He did not show for his ADAPT evaluation on 5 May. 
A review of the applicant’s medical records revealed the applicant was seen for two sessions in the mental health clinic during his time in service and requested to have his mental health chart closed; the applicant denied symptoms of a mental health condition. The applicant’s in-service mental health provider concurred that the applicant while the applicant was under stress due to legal and occupational problems, the applicant did not exhibit nor meet criteria for a mental health diagnosis.

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

There is no evidence the applicant had a mental health condition during his time in service, thus there is no evidence a mental health condition caused or contributed to the misconducts that led to the applicant’s discharge.

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

There is no evidence to substantiate the applicant’s contention that he had a mental health condition in service. Because the applicant’s discharge is not mitigated or excused, it 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 29 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)