AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00388	
					
SUMMARY:  The applicant was discharged on 1 October 2020 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Pattern of Misconduct.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her 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 an Article 15, a Letter of Reprimand, and a Letter of Counseling.   Her misconduct included:  disrespect toward an NCO, false official statements, communicating a threat, and unprofessional relationships.  

The applicant contended that although there were external factors outside her control, she took full responsibility for her actions.  She claimed she understood and accepted her faults and contributions that led to her General discharge.  Since her discharge she has matured both personally and professionally and has transitioned into a career that supports the warfighters.  She claimed her current discharge status impacts her ability to progress in her selected career, therefore, she requested an upgrade to provide further opportunities to better herself and facilitate her progression.

A review of the applicant’s record revealed she had unprofessional relationships with multiple officers stationed at her base.  She received a Letter of Reprimand for one relationship and was punished under Article 15 for three other relationships.  She also lied to her First Sergeant when questioned about the relationships and threatened subordinate Airmen if they disclosed the misconduct.  She stated in her response to the Article 15 she accepted responsibility for her actions but claimed she was in a “dark place” at the time.  She relayed a rough life growing up in Russia; her mother abandoned her, her alcoholic father murdered her grandmother, and she was eventually turned over to the orphanage system.  She was subsequently adopted by an American family and she claimed her life improved.  She claimed her poor decisions while in the military were the result of her past trauma as a child.

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,” “other mental health,” and “sexual assault/harassment” on her application.  The applicant did not make any claims regarding the boxes checked and requested a discharge upgrade to provide further opportunities to better herself, and to facilitate her progression and ability to contribute to programs that have global effects.  She claimed she understood and accepted her faults and contributions resulting in the general discharge she received. 

2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service?
 
There is no objective evidence, and the applicant made no claims or contentions of sexual assault/harassment experiences in service.  There is evidence the applicant intermittently sought and received mental health services during her time in service.  Based on the available records, the applicant reported childhood trauma that created distress at times during her time in service for which the applicant sought mental health services. Based on the available records, the applicant reported difficulty sleeping, nightmares at times, and sexual dysfunction.  The records reflected the applicant received the mental health diagnoses, in service, of history of physical or sexual abuse in childhood, PTSD (related to childhood trauma), and other problems related to psychosocial circumstances.  Based on a review of the applicant’s service records, the applicant’s mental health condition of PTSD existed prior to service (EPTS) and there is no evidence of service aggravation.

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

The applicant’s records revealed she was discharged due to a pattern of misconduct.  Based on the nature of the applicant’s misconduct, there is evidence that some of the applicant’s misconduct was premeditated.  Premeditated offenses are generally excluded from the intent of liberal consideration. The presence of a mental health condition, in and of itself, does not mitigate misconduct.  Based on the symptoms reported by the applicant to mental health providers (during the applicant’s time in service) related to her condition of PTSD, (poor sleep, nightmares, sexual dysfunction), there is no evidence of a nexus between the applicant’s mental health condition and the misconduct that led to the applicant’s discharge.  And while the records revealed the applicant reported an exacerbation of PTSD symptoms subsequent to disciplinary actions, misconduct in service does not constitute service aggravation of an EPTS condition. 
 
The applicant submitted VA ratings as evidence to substantiate her 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’s mental health condition caused or mitigated the misconduct which led to the applicant’s discharge.  Because the applicant’s condition does not mitigate his discharge, it does not outweigh her discharge.

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

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 and found no evidence of inequity or impropriety.

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge characterization to Honorable.  The DRB also voted unanimously to deny changing the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority and to 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 21 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)