AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00346	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 2 November 2019 in accordance with AFI 36-3209 with a General Discharge for Misconduct-Commission of a Serious Offense. The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, via video teleconference using Zoom on 15 November 2022. No witnesses were present to testify on the applicant’s behalf. 

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 a Letter of Reprimand.  His misconduct consisted of willfully and unlawfully altered official military orders and was subsequently arrested by New York State Police.

The applicant through counsel contended that the discharge was given erroneously because it was substantively and procedurally defective and was unfair then and is unfair now. 

During the personal appearance, the applicant through counsel explained that he altered the orders in order to gain points on a test to join the New York State Police. He indicated that once questioned, he immediately admitted his wrongdoing. He went on to explain that after this, he was treated unfairly to the point that he filed an EO complaint. The applicant stated that his leadership removed him from his section, withdrew his access to secure areas, and constantly watched and followed him. He informed the Board that the results of the EO complaint was inconclusive. The applicant concluded that unfair treatment, along with his unknown future had an effect on his mental health.

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 did not find evidence to indicate the applicant’s claim of racial discrimination and reprisal caused inequitable or improper discharge circumstances.  The Board determined that the nature of the applicant’s misconduct warranted the discharge characterization and narrative reason that he had received.     

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 checked the boxes for “other mental health” and “reprisal/whistleblower” on the application. Reprisal/whistleblower is not considered under the guidance and provisions of liberal consideration. The applicant did not, nor did counsel, make any mental health contentions on the application and stated “The discharge was given erroneously. The applicant believes that his discharge is both substantively and procedurally defective. He believes the discharge was unfair at the time and it is unfair now. “ 
 
2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 

There is no evidence the applicant sought or received any mental health treatment during his time in service. There is no evidence the applicant exhibited any clinically significant features of a mental health condition during his time in service. 

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

Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant forged his supervisor’s signature on a memorandum for employment and provided falsified documents to the State Police which were identified during a background check. There is no evidence the applicant sought or received any mental health treatment during his time in service. There is no evidence the applicant exhibited any clinically significant features of a mental health condition, during his time in service. The applicant provided testimony that his mental health was at an “all time high” prior to his misconduct and he felt he was highly successful. The applicant noted he believed his mental health declined after his misconduct and time of being “in limbo” of not knowing the outcome of his disciplinary action. The applicant also noted he felt a further decline in his mental health during the processing of his EO complaint.  The applicant made no claim or contention that a mental health condition caused or substantially contributed to the misconduct that led to the applicant’s discharge. While military legal proceeding can be stressful, they do not constitute a mental health condition that mitigates the misconduct that initiated the legal proceedings.  There is no evidence a mental health condition caused or mitigated the misconduct that led to the applicant’s discharge. 

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

There is no evidence to substantiate the applicant’s contention that he had a mental health condition in service. Because the applicant’s discharge is not mitigated or excused, 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. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain “General”, the narrative reason for separation shall remain “Misconduct-Commission of a Serious Offense” and the reentry code shall remain “6H”. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 16 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)