AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00403	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 15 July 2016 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Honorable discharge and the Narrative Reason is Condition, not, a Disability. The applicant appealed for a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference using Zoom on 5 January 2023.  A witness was 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 requested a change to his reentry code from 2C to 3K and separation code.  The applicant stated that he had evidence that the initial reason for his discharge, is baseless and in no way applicable to him.  He stated that his command had an erroneous response that ignored evidence of mental health improvement. The applicant stated that in his first appeal to the DRB, the board changed the separation code to “Condition not a disability”. The applicant stated his lack of education, his subjection to multiple psychologists, and his misinformed chain of command led to his discharge. He stated that he should have been allowed to recover and continue serving just like others in similar situations

The DRB reviewed the applicants written statement and after a thorough review of his medical and service records, determined the applicant did not provide evidence to indicate that his reentry code was inequitable or improper.  The applicant described the condition he was given as being a misdiagnosis.  However, the DRB did not find evidence to support the applicant’s contentions that his chain of command did not have a basis for a discharge based on a mental health condition.  The Board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.

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 box for “other mental health” on the application. The applicant requested a change to his narrative reason for separation and change to his re-entry code and contended “I am requesting this because I believe I have evidence that the initial reason for my discharge, conduct disorder and/or impulse control disorder is baseless and in no way applicable to me. I believe this led to an erroneous response by my former command that ignored evidence of mental health improvement. The [Discharge Review] board had on my first attempt, changed the separation code to reflect more recent guidance and the situation was considered “Condition, not a disability.” However, with a better understanding of my own mental health, as well as terminology and diagnostic criteria, I believe that the more valid diagnosis of ‘unspecified depressive disorder” was misconstrued and should have been considered situational depression as there is evidence for this listed in my military mental health records. It is my belief that a combination of my own lack of education on the subject at the time, a shuffling of assigned psychologists, and a misinformed chain of command led to my expulsion from the USAF in a situation where I could have reasonably expected to recover and continue serving just as many in a similar situation have done before.”  

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

There is evidence the applicant received MH treatment in service, which resulted the applicant receiving a diagnosis of “unspecified disruptive, impulse control, and conduct disorder. The applicant’s conditions were determined to be unsuiting conditions and appropriately resulted the applicant’s administrative separation. The applicant was granted relief based on his previous DRB review and his Narrative Reason for Separation was changed to “Condition, not a Disability” to reflect recent guidance. During the applicant’s personal appearance hearing, the applicant contested the diagnosis he received in service and stated he was not given an opportunity to rehabilitate himself to stay in the military. 

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

Based on a review of the applicant’s records, during the applicant’s brief time in service there is evidence the applicant exhibited impulsive behavior that had the potential to endanger his safety, the safety of others, and the safety of the mission. A review of the applicant’s records revealed the applicant exhibited poor emotion regulation skills and impulsivity that prevented him from participating in the duties of his career-field and would have prevented him from functioning effectively in any other AFSC. The records revealed the applicant’s behaviors coupled with his lack of engagement in and ultimately refusal of treatment led to the MH provider’s recommendation that the applicant be administratively separated. A review of the previous Discharge Review Board documents revealed the Board concurred that “Condition, not a disability” was a more appropriately narrative reason than the Narrative reason assigned upon discharge (“Impulse Control Disorder”) based on updated guidance implemented to protect the applicant’s health information.  

The applicant’s request to change his narrative reason to a medical discharge is outside the scope of the DRB. The applicant has an honorable discharge.  At the time of the applicant’s discharge, he endorsed willingness to be discharged from the military. During the applicant’s personal appearance hearing, the applicant stated he stated he wanted to be discharged, but noted he felt discharge was his only option because at that time he was only interested in a flying career. There is no evidence that a change of the RE code is appropriate. The applicant acknowledged during his personal appearance hearing that he had some difficulties adjusting to military life and the fast moving and compounding pressures of military life but felt that he handled them appropriately and stated he believes his coping skills are the same today as they were at the time he was in the military, but he was not given a fair opportunity in the military to adjust.

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

No error 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 did not find that any of the factors mitigated the discharge.  

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 3K.
 
CONCLUSION:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service, service/medical record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was proper and equitable. 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 9 January 2023.  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)