AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00316	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 27 December 2017 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge characterization and his Narrative Reason for Separation was Misconduct (Minor Infraction). The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization.

The applicant was 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 an Article 15, a Letter of Reprimand, and a Letter of Counseling.  His misconduct included wrongfully communicating death threats and intimidating the SARC. 

The applicant requested an upgrade of his discharge characterization.  The applicant stated that his discharge was inequitable due to the false accusations made against him that caused him to be discharged.  The applicant stated that he got involved with a female while legally still married.  He stated that over time the female was trying to take advantage of him, asking for money and other favors that the applicant was uncomfortable with doing.  The applicant stated that when he refused the female's request, the accusations of harming her and himself began.  The applicant stated that the female contacted OSI about the threats, and he was brought in for questions.     

The DRB thoroughly reviewed the applicant’s testimony and service records.  The Board determined that the administrative actions taken by the applicant’s chain of command were equitable and proper.  The Board concluded that the discharge that the applicant received was appropriate based on his misconduct.   

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.  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 selected the condition “PTSD” on his application.  The applicant, through counsel, contended “there is no evidence of the Air Force attempting to provide any meaningful assistance to the Airman while on active duty. Rather, his PTSD was evaluated, and he was simply discharged, the convenient manner in which to deal with a young airman.” 
 
2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 

A review of the applicant’s records revealed the applicant was evaluated by direction of a Command Directed Evaluation as well as by voluntarily seeking mental health services during his time in service. There is no evidence the applicant exhibited or endorsed any clinically significant indicators of PTSD during his time in service. Based on the available records the applicant received the diagnoses, in service, of adjustment disorder (2015), personality disorder- mixed cluster B features (2017), uncomplicated bereavement (2017), and other psychosocial problem related to legal circumstances (2017). 

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

There is evidence the applicant exhibited and endorsed features of a personality disorder during his time in service. The applicant’s personality disorder traits likely caused, or substantially contributed to, his behavioral and misconduct issues in service and are considered incompatible for military service. Personality disorders and traits are conditions of a developmental nature- they are pervasive, stable, persistent, and often resistant to treatment. This condition may explain the applicant’s misconduct, but it does not mitigate the misconduct. 

The applicant submitted his VA rating as evidence to substantiate his claim. The VA, operating under a different set of laws than the military, is empowered to offer compensation for any medical or mental health condition with an established nexus to military service, without regard to its impact on a member’s fitness to serve, the narrative reason for release for service, or the length of time that has transpired since the date of discharge. The VA may also conduct periodic reevaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating as the level of impairment from a given condition may improve or worsen over the life of the veteran. At the “snapshot in time” of the applicant’s service, the applicant did not endorse nor exhibit any clinically significant indicators of PTSD and the applicant denied any adverse mental health impacts from the sexual encounter that led to him being under investigation. A review of the applicant’s records indicated the applicant made it known that being investigated was a stressful experience. While military investigations and legal proceedings can be stressful, they do not constitute a mental health condition that mitigates the misconduct that initiated the legal proceedings.

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Because the applicant’s condition does not mitigate his discharge, it does not outweigh his 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 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 and medical records, 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 14 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)