AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00355	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 16 October 2009 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General Discharge for Misconduct (Other). The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference using Zoom on 29 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 General Court-Martial, multiple Article 15s, multiple Letters of Reprimand, and multiple Letters of Counseling.  His misconduct included:  Failed to report at the time prescribed to place of duty (multiple instances); Failed to properly complete thruflight inspection; repeatedly failed to accomplish assigned duties as directed; repeatedly failed to accomplish task after being order to do so three times; absented himself from place of duty on or about 11 January 2009 and remained so until 12 January 2009; violated a military protective order by having contact with spouse; was found guilty during a General Court-Martial for disobeying a no contact order; willfully damaged a door frame in base residence, damage being $163.93; willfully and wrongfully destroyed cell phone by twisting it in his hands, with a value of less than $500, property of another; Willfully and wrongfully destroyed a cell phone by throwing it against the wall, with a value of less than $500, property of another; Willfully and wrongfully destroyed wedding dress and purse by cutting and tearing, being of value of less than $500, property of another; Stole a digital video disc, property of another; Assaulted Airman by attempting to place his body on top of her and attempting to kiss her neck; unlawfully caused a broken glass to strike another on the arm; on divers occasions, unlawfully place his hands upon arms of another; drunk and disorderly; unlawfully entered the dorm of another Airman (multiple instances).

The applicant explained that he only became a problem after the death of his mother and suicide of one of his Wingmen. He stated that as a result, he suffers from anxiety, stress, depression and PTSD. The applicant concluded that he served 40 of his 48 months honorable and so he requested an honorable discharge. 

During the personal appearance, the applicant provided the following sworn testimony. The applicant contended that he had served honorably for three of the four years he had been in service. He explained that he was struggling with balancing work and life and had marital issues due to being young. He highlighted that he wasn’t a problem Airman, he just needed help, as he didn’t know how to manage. Additionally, the applicant indicated that, while on his second deployment, he faced a traumatic event as an aircraft had crashed near his vicinity. 

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. During the personal appearance, the Board determined, through the applicant’s personal testimony, that the mitigating factors laid out in the application happened after most of the misconduct occurred in service. Additionally, the Board understood that the applicant felt he served honorably for 3 years of his 4-year contract, however the applicant’s record indicated that he had issues during the entirety of his career. It found that the egregious nature of the applicant’s willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of his service.  

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 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 “PTSD” and “other mental health” on the application. The applicant contended “I served honorably but became a problem for command after death of my single parent mother and suicide of wingman and fellow service member. As a result, I suffer from anxiety, stress, severe depression, and PTSD. Mismanagement of these issues further enhanced my conditions. Please change my discharge from General to Honorable as I served over 40 months of my 48 month contract without issue.” 
 
2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 

There is no evidence or records the applicant was diagnosed with or exhibited clinically significant indicators of PTSD during his time in service. There is evidence the applicant was command referred to ADAPT and Family Advocacy 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 was discharged due to misconduct. The applicant contended he “served over 40 months of my 48 month contract without issue.” The records indicated the applicant was convicted under a General court-martial, received one Article 15, two Letters of Reprimand, three Letters of Counseling, and one Record of Individual Counseling. His misconduct included disrespect to an AF member who was in a position of authority, failed to go to duty on time (2x), failed to properly complete thru-flight inspection, failed to accomplish assigned duties, failed to compete task on three separate occasions, violated military protection order (2x), willful damage to military property, destroyed cell phone belonging to SrA, destroyed dress and purse belonging to SrA, stole digital video disc belonging to Al C, assaulted female airman, caused broken glass to strike a SrA, unlawfully placed hands on SrA, drunk and disorderly, unlawfully entered female airman dorm room and unlawfully entered male airman dorm room. 

There is evidence the applicant’s misconduct began prior to the experience the applicant contended should mitigate his discharge and persisted after.  Furthermore, liberal consideration generally does not apply to violence against another person and premeditated offenses. The applicant’s most serious offenses involve both violence against another person and premeditation.

The applicant referenced his VA rating during his personal appearance hearing and concurred with his VA diagnosis. Regarding the applicant’s concurrence with his VA diagnoses, 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 had a mental health condition  that caused or mitigated the misconduct(s) which led to the applicant’s discharge.  

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

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. 

FINDING:  The DRB voted 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 (Other)”, and the reentry code shall remain “2B”. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 2 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)