AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00302	
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 9 September 2021 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge characterization and a Narrative Reason for Separation of Misconduct (Drug Abuse). The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization.

The applicant was not represented by counsel and 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 multiple Article 15s.  His misconduct included wrongfully using marijuana. 

The applicant requested an upgraded discharge.  The applicant contended that his discharge was improper and inequitable.  He stated that his leadership and the base ADC did not follow the proper standards for discharging him.  He stated he was lied to by his leadership and the ADC when he was told the second Article 15 would be rescinded.   He stated that he was punished twice for the same violation.  However, he stated the second time that there was 0 evidence of THC in his system.  The applicant stated that he had mentioned to his First Sergeant that there was a strong marijuana odor in the apartment building where his family lived.  The applicant stated that it was the reason why he was prepping to move them out of the apartment building.  The applicant stated that he did not consider his words to make a statement or direct reason to assume he would have THC in his system.  He stated that he thought a First Sergeant was supposed to be there to help whenever a derogatory incident occurred.  The applicant stated that he received Article 15 for the incident and accepted Article 15 at the advice of the ADC office.  He stated he explained in detail how the THC got into his system.  However, the applicant did not include the people smoking marijuana in the apartment as part of his justification.  At that time, the commander stated that the First Sergeant told him that the applicant had been around people who smoked and knew they would have given the applicant the opportunity to smoke.  The applicant felt this gave the commander additional reasons to believe that the applicant was willingly and knowingly around people who smoked marijuana inside the building, which was not the applicant's intention.  The applicant stated that the proof on his phone showed the times he called and complained about the smell in the building.  The applicant stated that the false statements made by his First Sergeant influenced the commander's decision to give him an Article 15.  The applicant stated that he wanted to proceed with a court martial because he was confident he could prove his case.  He stated that his supervisor told him not to go through with a court martial because the commander was getting ready for PCS and did not have time for it.  He stated that he was misled to think that everything would die down if he didn't go through with the court marital.  He stated that he was given a week to discharge when he was supposed to receive at least 120 days.   

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.  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 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 for “PTSD”, “other mental health” and “sexual assault/harassment” on the application. The applicant’s contended in his personal statement “this [discharge] was a long drawn out process in the dark and lied to from April to September, to the point I had to attend mental health and behavior study for sleep during this time to speak to someone to even finding out which my ADC was supposed to enroll me in SDAPT a program for those who abuse drugs, which is the characterization I received and wasn’t warranted. This could have also helped prevent the second article if the proper steps were taken this whole process.”  

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

There is evidence the applicant sought and received supportive mental health counseling during his discharge process. There is no evidence the applicant was diagnosed with or endorsed or exhibited any clinically significant indicators of PTSD during his time in service. There is no objective evidence or records to substantiate the applicant’s contention of sexual assault/harassment experience in service.   

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

A review of the applicant’s records revealed the applicant was discharged due to drug use (marijuana) on multiple occasions. There is no evidence a mental health condition caused or mitigated the misconduct(s) that led to the applicant’s discharge. A review of the applicant’s mental health records indicate he sought mental health services after his misconduct and due to stressors subsequent to the disciplinary actions resulting from the misconducts. There is no evidence of mitigating nexus between the applicant’s mental health conditions and the misconduct(s) that led to his discharge. 

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

Because the applicant’s discharge is not mitigated, 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 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 23 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)