AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00363	
					
SUMMARY:  The applicant was discharged on 15 February 2019 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 multiple Article 15s for driving under the influence of alcohol, drunk and disorderly conduct, and urinating on a fellow Airman.  

The applicant contended while attending technical school training he used alcohol to help him with problems sleeping and the use of alcohol led to his first Article 15.  He further contended that his sleep issues continued at his first duty station, and he sought medical help, but due to his Article 15, he claimed he was informed he would not be evaluated.  He claimed as a result of his undiagnosed medical condition, and his lack of perceived concern by the medical staff, he continued to self-medicate with alcohol, resulting in a second Article 15.  He further claimed he was eventually diagnosed with sleep apnea; however, it was too late to treat the condition because the Air Force had already taken disciplinary action against him.  He sought out treatment since his discharge and claimed he suffered from depression and anxiety.  He contended that had he been properly diagnosed and treated while in the military he would have been a high performing Airman.

A review of the applicant’s record revealed he had multiple alcohol related incidents, including a DUI, drunk and disorderly conduct, and urinating on his roommate and defecating in his bed.  His misconduct led to two Article 15s in an 18-month time period.  He claimed to use alcohol to help him sleep, and despite repeated attempts to get medical attention for his sleep issues, was not properly diagnosed until after his misconduct.  He submitted VA records that indicated he had been diagnosed with sleep apnea as well as adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, chronic cannabis disorder, and alcohol use disorder, and has been given a 100% service-connected disability rating.  

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 contend that a condition or experience may have excused or mitigated their misconduct or discharge?  

The applicant checked the boxes for “PTSD” and “other mental health” on his application.  The applicant contended while in technical school he relied on alcohol to help alleviate sleeping issues and his use of alcohol led to an Article 15.  He claimed once he arrived at his first duty station his sleeping issues continued to worsen.  The applicant also contended after seeking post active duty treatment for this condition he learned that he also suffered from depression and anxiety that stemmed from his issues at technical school.

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

Based on a review of the applicant’s records, there is evidence the applicant was command referred to ADAPT on multiple occasions during his time in service.  There is also evidence the applicant was referred to mental health by his primary care doctor due to reports of difficulty sleeping during his time in service in an effort to help with strategies to improve his sleep hygiene.  There is no evidence or records the applicant exhibited or endorsed any clinically significant indicators 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 was discharged due to misconduct, specifically operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and drunk and disorderly conduct.  The applicant contended on several occasions he sought medical help for these issues, however, because of his previous Article 15, he was informed that his condition did not need to be evaluated any further.  Additionally, his continued use of alcohol led to a second Article 15 and a general discharge.  The applicant claimed that while he was going through the disciplinary process the medical staff evaluated his issues more thoroughly and determined he was suffering from undiagnosed sleep apnea.  There is no evidence the nature of the applicant’s misconduct was related to a mental health condition caused by a medical condition.  Rather, the applicant’s records indicate his misconduct occurred in the context of social settings, or during the applicant’s scheduled duty hours.  The applicant’s records also revealed he continued to use alcohol after he completed Level 1 and Level 2 substance use treatment and after he received evaluation and recommendations for improved sleep quality.  There is evidence the applicant reported sleep difficulties, which may explain the applicant’s maladaptive alcohol use, but it does not mitigate the applicant’s 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, there is no evidence the applicant had a mental health condition that caused or mitigated the misconduct which led to the applicant’s discharge.

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Based on a review of the applicant’s records, there is evidence the applicant’s conditions were made known to the chain of command and were considered during the discharge process.  The command noted the applicant was given opportunities to rehabilitate his maladaptive behaviors and continued to commit misconduct.  Therefore, his condition 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.”  The Board considered the factors listed in paragraphs (6)(a)-(6)(l) and (7)(a)-(7)(r) of this memorandum and found no evidence of inequity or impropriety.

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable.  The DRB also voted unanimously to deny changing the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority and changing 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, 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)