AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00345	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 13 December 2021 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court Martial. 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 review only.

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:  without authority, failed to go at the at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty. 

The applicant contended that his service was honorable aside from the isolated incident at the end of his service, and therefore, should be upgraded to an Honorable discharge characterization. He explained that in 2020, he was accused of sexual assault by his ex-girlfriend, and by the end of the year, he was cleared, the investigation was closed, and charges were dropped. However, six months later, that same commander preferred charges against him for the same incident and recommended a court-martial. The applicant stated that he hired an attorney and it was communicated to that attorney by the prosecutor, that they would approve a Chapter 4 separation. 

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 there was not enough evidence to substantiate the applicant’s contentions. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to indication that the circumstances surrounding his discharge were inappropriate. The board relies on the presumption of regularity and based on the lack of evidence to indicate otherwise, it concluded the applicant’s discharge 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 boxes for “PTSD” and “other mental health” on the application. The applicant contended “In 2020, I was accused of sexual assault by an ex-girlfriend. Air Force OSI did an investigation which came back unfounded. In October 2020, my Commander brought me in and told me that I was cleared, the investigation was closed, the charges were dropped, and my medical separation could proceed as normal now.” The applicant also contended he was approved a Chapter 4 separation in lieu of a court martial and stated “I firmly believe this treatment was for my medical issue, and not the legal issues. All of my active duty service was honorable, aside from this isolated incident at the end of my service.”  

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

There is evidence the applicant sought and received mental health services during his time in service. There is evidence the applicant received Family Advocacy Program services during his time in service. Based on a review of the applicant’s records, there is evidence the applicant was evaluated for PTSD during his time in service but the records reflect the applicant’s symptoms were more accurately categorized by a personality disorder after a psychological testing and a more thorough diagnostic analysis.   

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 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. Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant’s psychological testing revealed that the applicant has an unsuiting condition, Other Specified Personality Disorder with mixed personality features, that is incompatible with military service. The records reveal the applicant was recommend for administrative separation due to his personality disorder IAW AFI 36-3208 para 5.11.9. The mental health provider documented the applicant’s condition does not qualify as a disability and a Medical Evaluation Board would not be initiated for any mental health condition. Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant’s provider noted that while the applicant’s records did reflect a diagnosis of PTSD early in his career; PTSD was assessed and ruled out as a condition that may have impacted or contributed to the applicant’s presentation or behaviors at the time of the testing. The provider also noted the applicant did not meet criteria for any other disorder that would potentially be eligible for MEB processing. Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant appeared to be an inconsistent historian regarding his traumatic experiences particularly when presented with indisputable facts. The applicant’s condition of personality disorder may explain the applicant’s misconduct, but it does not mitigate the misconduct. 

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant’s mental health conditions were known and fully considered by the applicant’s command during the discharge process. No error or injustice was found in review of the applicant’s records, thus the applicant’s discharge is 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 and did not find that any of the factors mitigated his misconduct. 

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. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, the narrative reason for separation shall remain “In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial”, and the reentry code shall remain “2B”. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 9 December 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)