AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00390	
					
SUMMARY:  The applicant was discharged on 25 November 2009 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Honorable discharge for Unsatisfactory Performance.  The applicant appealed for a change to his separation code.

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 for underage drinking.  

The applicant contended his separation code was in error.  He claimed he excelled at his position as a Maintenance Data Systems Analyst and supervised other Airmen.  He further claimed he was unable to complete testing for his next skill level due to test anxiety.  He was unable to overcome his anxiety and has been given a service-connected disability rating from the VA.  He contended his separation code should be JHF, failure to complete a course of instruction.   

A review of the applicant’s record reveals he failed his skill training Career Development Course (CDC) End of Course Exam twice.  The applicant’s service records demonstrate that his unit made significant efforts to help him successfully pass the exam.  The records indicated it was known the applicant had test anxiety issues and he was taking medication for them.  The DRB noted Unsatisfactory Performance is the standard discharge narrative reason associated with CDC failures in the Air Force.	

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 box for “other mental health” on the application.  The applicant contended he was unable to pass his skill level test to advance due to serious testing anxiety. He claimed he worked very hard and always put his best food forward but was unable to overcome his anxiety.  He is currently 80% service connected for anxiety by the VA.  He claimed his separation code was a clerical error.

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

Based on a review of the applicant’s records, there is evidence the applicant received mental health services and ADAPT services during his time in service.  The applicant’s records revealed the applicant was seen by a mental health provider on two separate occasions and presented to his primary care provider reporting symptoms of depression and anxiety.  The applicant’s records also indicated he was command referred to ADAPT due to underage drinking and completed alcohol education classes.

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

Based on a review of the applicant’s DD214, the applicant was discharged due to unsatisfactory performance for failure to progress in on-the-job training.  The applicant’s records revealed he was provided with numerous opportunities, accommodations, and assistance in order to achieve compliance with the training requirement but was unable to meet the passing requirement.  As noted on the “Second Career Development Course Failure” Memorandum “when put in high pressure situations, the applicant is not able to cope with his anxiety issues in a constructive manner in order to complete tasks.  He has shown a lack of initiative, as it has taken him 19 months to complete the course.  He stated that he had difficulty understanding information without hands on practical application.  This is not always possible and will be a problem for his career progression should the commander elect to waive the CDC requirement.”  A review of the applicant’s records revealed the applicant’s mental health condition was determined by command, at the time of his discharge, to have substantially contributed to his discharge.

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Based on review of the applicant’s records, the applicant’s mental health condition was known and fully considered by the applicant’s command during the discharge process.  No error or injustice was found in review of the applicant’s records, thus the applicant’s condition does not outweigh the 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 changing the applicant’s separation code.  The DRB also voted unanimously to deny changing the discharge narrative reason.   

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 25 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)