AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00343	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 31 May 2017 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General Discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions). 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 an Article 15, multiple Letters of Reprimand, and multiple Letters of Counseling.  His misconduct included: had his cell phone on person during duty hours; failure to obey a lawful order and provided a false statement; failure to keep hair within standards; provided false statement about informing NCOIC of his need to get a haircut; failure to maintain dorm room standards; failed to bring squadron camera to monthly promotion ceremony; failure to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty; and negligently failed to adhere to the Air Force Manual 17-1301 (COMPUSEC).

The applicant stated he takes responsibility for the infractions that led to the discharge; however, the mental health issues played a pivotal part in his downward spiral.   

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 determined that the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate. 

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 physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  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 box for “other mental health”. The applicant contended “I am confident that had I realized the seriousness of my depression in the military, and received treatment earlier, it would have likely prevented me from spiraling down and making so many mistakes, and that I may have been able to make a career out of the military.” 
 
2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 

Based on a review of the applicant’s records, there is evidence the applicant sought and received mental health services during his time in service. The applicant’s records reflect he received the diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression.   

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

The applicant was discharged due to misconduct. Based on a review of the applicant’s mental health records, the applicant reported he was experiencing psychosocial stressors upon arrival to his first base including a relationship break-up and difficulty adjusting to the military expectations in his job assignment after basic training and tech school. The applicant’s service records indicated he reported these concerns to be resolved and requested to discontinue mental health services due to his mood being improved and coping skills increased.  There is evidence the applicant exhibited a pattern of disciplinary infractions during his time in service, despite accommodations to increase to performance and socialization including being moved to different sections and being placed back into a training status to accommodate learning new tasks, and the applicant did not adhere to Air Force standards. The timeline contended by the applicant contradicted the applicant’s service records.  Based on the applicant’s records, the applicant received mental health service from April 2016 through June 2016. There is no evidence of disciplinary infractions prior to the applicant’s referral to mental health by his First Shirt. Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant’s pattern of misconduct began in August 2016, after the applicant reported to his mental health provider that he felt his adjustment issue had resolved, his mood was sufficiently improved and requested to discontinue mental health services. There is no evidence of a mitigating nexus between the applicant’s mental health condition and the misconducts that the led to this discharge.  

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, there is no evidence the applicant’s mental health condition caused or mitigated the misconduct(s) which led to the applicant’s discharge. 

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

There is no evidence of a mitigating nexus between the applicant’s mental health condition and the misconduct that the led to this discharge. Because the applicant’s discharge is not mitigated by a mental condition, 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.”  The Board considered the factors listed in paragraphs (6)(a)-(6)(l) and (7)(a)-(7)(r) of this memorandum.

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 10 November 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)