AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00303	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 22 May 2013 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge characterization and Misconduct (Serious Offense) as the Narrative Reason for Separation. The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge characterization, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.

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 requested an upgrade to her discharge from General to Honorable.  The applicant stated that a fellow Airman raped her in her dorm room while serving.   She stated that she struggled due to the military sexual trauma and had PTSD symptoms.  She stated that to cope with her trauma, she developed an alcohol dependency.  She stated that her behavior was caused by PTSD, resulting from MST, and she was administratively discharged with a General discharge.  The applicant stated that before her assault, she thrived at her duty location.  She stated that she was recognized for performances and achievements on and off duty. 

The DRB determined that some aspects of the applicant’s mental health condition were mitigating factors to the applicant's misconduct, however, it could not completely explain or excuse the misconduct sufficiently to warrant upgrading the discharge.  The Board recommends the applicant exercise the right to make a personal appearance before the DRB to present additional evidence and testimony to support contentions that the MST led to the misconduct the was the cause of her discharge.

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 clinical psychologist.  And 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”, “sexual assault/harassment”, and “reprisal/whistleblower” on the application. The applicant, through counsel, contended “In 2011, [the applicant] was raped by a fellow airman in her down room. Immediately after experiencing this military sexual trauma (“MST”) event, [the applicant] began to struggle with and continues to struggle with the effects of this offense, including significant Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) symptoms. [The applicant] also developed an alcohol dependency following the MST event as a way to cope with her trauma. “  
2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 

There is evidence the applicant was command referred to ADAPT services during her time in service and received a diagnosis of alcoholism; the applicant’s records reveal the applicant received inpatient and outpatient substance abuse services during her time in service. There is evidence the applicant refused mental health clinic services, and stated a preference for other resources including family, chaplains, and Military One Source, but was seen by mental health clinic providers on at least two occasions and was given the diagnosis of adjustment disorder with depressed mood. There is no evidence in the applicant’s records the applicant received a diagnosis of PTSD 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? 

The applicant, through counsel, submitted evidence of the applicant’s dated report of “restricted reporting”.  Two days later, the she later changed her report to “unrestricted reporting” to request an investigation by authorities. Based on review of the available records, the applicant’s contended experience of MST occurred in/around September/October 2011. There is evidence the applicant was using alcohol prior to and after this period of time. There is evidence the applicant had documented misconducts prior to and after this period of time.  A review of the applicant’s medical records revealed the applicant was experiencing marked physical and emotional distress after this period of time.  There is evidence the applicant’s experience of MST may have substantially contributed to the applicant’s maladaptive substance use and may have mitigated her discharge. 

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Although there is evidence the applicant’s experience of military sexual assault may have mitigated her discharge, it does not outweigh it. The severity of the applicant’s misconduct does not outweigh the current characterization of service or narrative reason for separation. 

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 2 to 1 to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge characterization to Honorable and to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 2C or 3K.  The DRB voted 2 to 1 to change her Narrative Reason for Separation to Secretarial Authority. 

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 characterization and reentry code was proper and equitable.  However, the Board found the Narrative Reason was inequitable based on the applicants experience of MST.  Therefore, the narrative reason for separation shall change to Secretarial Authority.  The awarded characterization of service and the reentry code shall not change. 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)