AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00371	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 4 November 2011 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with General Discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions). The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge characterization.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference using Zoom on 13 December 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 multiple Article 15s and multiple Letters of Counseling.  Her misconduct included:  provided false information on an official fitness program score card; absented herself without authority from on or about 2 September and remained absent until 6 September; failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty; on divers occasions between 2 and 5 September, negligently failed to return calls made to her by an NCO; made a false official statement that she was home between 1 and 6 September, as she was not in the local area; failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty; failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty; and made a false official statement; failure to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty.

The applicant stated that she had an undiagnosed mental health disorder.

During the personal appearance, the applicant walked the board through the details of her various misconduct and highlighted her innocence for the fitness score card and AWOL incidents. The applicant checked the “PTSD” and “other Mental health” boxes on the application. When asked, she indicated that the PTSD was from a very rough childhood, indicating that she was raised by her grandmother from 4 years old. She indicated that the other mental health was due to the panic attacks she experiences. When asked about the mental health issues, she indicated that she’s had issues with “cutting” since teenage years, but it wasn’t until her Article 15s that she really broke and requested help. She concluded that when she was having issues, she brought them up but the leadership didn’t act on it. She felt that her voice was not heard, as she was not listened to or believed when she rebutted the misconduct and spoke of her innocence.

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 applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior while in service. The applicant did not provide evidence regarding her contentions during her testimony to substantiate her claims and her service records did not indicate that her leadership acted inappropriately in their response to her misconduct.  The applicant did not demonstrate that the circumstances surrounding her actions that led to her discharge were inequitable or improper, thus the DRB concluded that the 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 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 have had an undiagnosed mental health disorder.” 
 
2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 

There is evidence the applicant received mental health services during her time in service. Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant reported feelings of anxiety and depression to her PCM after being notified of her discharge due to misconduct and was referred to the mental health clinic. A review of the applicant’s records revealed the applicant received the diagnosis, in service, of anxiety, unspecified and depression, unspecified.  There is no evidence or records the applicant exhibited or endorsed any clinically significant features of PTSD during her 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, minor infractions.  The applicant contended “I have an undiagnosed mental health disorder” on her application but provided no additional information in her application to substantiate her claim. A review of the applicant’s discharge package revealed no mention of a mental health condition and the applicant either denied the misconduct or stated she made mistakes and apologized. During the applicant’s personal appearance hearing, she reported a pre-service history of cutting herself and self-harm dating back to her early teens. The applicant also endorsed issues of fear of abandonment and fear of rejection, noting feelings that “nobody wanted me” dating back to her pre-service experiences of being underhoused. The applicant reported during her personal appearance hearing that she checked the box for “PTSD” based on her experience of not feeling wanted as a child. The applicant reported during her personal appearance hearing that she had memory problems in service and difficulty coping with the progressive disciplinary actions during her time in service. There were inconsistencies noted between the testimony provided by the applicant in her personal appearance hearing and the evidence available in the applicant’s records. There is no evidence of a nexus between the applicant’s in-service mental health conditions and the misconduct for which she was discharged. 

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 and did not find any that mitigated the applicant’s misconduct that led to her discharge. 

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade her 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 (Minor Infractions)”, and the reentry code shall remain “2B”. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 16 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)