AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00407	
					
SUMMARY:  The applicant was discharged on 22 February 2019 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Serious Offense).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge characterization and a change to the discharge narrative reason.

The applicant was 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 Letters of Reprimand and Letters of Counseling.  Her misconduct included:  driving under the influence of alcohol, making false statements, offensive behavior, drunk and disorderly conduct, and dereliction of duty.  

Through counsel the applicant contended that she was sexually assaulted by another service member while serving in the Air Force.  She claimed she was diagnosed with Military Sexual Trauma (MST), Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and other mental health conditions.  She further contended that her discharge was inconsistent with standards of discipline within the Air Force and that under existing policies and procedures, which emphasize the mitigating factors of sexual trauma and PTSD, the applicant should not have been discharged with a General discharge.  The applicant further contended that, irrespective of the discharge standards at the time of issuance, the relief the applicant sought is warranted based on her service record prior to the sexual assault, and other mitigating factors.

The applicant also contended her discharge was improper as the Air Force was required to provide a medical examination prior to her separation.  She should have been evaluated to determine whether the effects of PTSD or the sexual assault constituted matters in extenuation that related to the basis for administrative separation since she had experienced sexual assault within the 24 months prior to her discharge. 

A review of the applicant’s record revealed while she was stationed overseas in Japan she drove a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, struck a local national’s car, and then changed seats in the vehicle to give the appearance she was a passenger.  The record also indicated there were other individuals in the vehicle with the applicant at the time of the incident, and according to the evidence, she attempted to convince them to flee the scene of the accident.  When local police arrived on scene the applicant acted inappropriately, was combative, and refused to cooperate with instructions.  She was apprehended and a breathalyzer test revealed she had an initial .20 BAC and a subsequent .157 BAC.  The applicant was fined $5,000 by Japanese authorities and she received a Letter of Reprimand from her unit for the misconduct.  The applicant also had a previous incident of misconduct by breaking base curfew hours and a failed dorm room inspection. 

According to the evidence in the record, the applicant made an unrestricted report of sexual assault.  The details in the discharge proceedings indicated the applicant did not provide information to the unit regarding the assault and voluntarily chose to not participate in an investigation.  

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 the application.  The applicant, through counsel, contended that while serving in the Air Force she was sexually assaulted by a fellow service member and was diagnosed with military sexual trauma, PTSD, and related mental health conditions.

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

Based on a review of the applicant’s medical and mental health records, there is evidence the applicant self-referred to the ADAPT clinic for maladaptive substance use.  The records revealed the applicant received substance abuse services and mental health care during her time in service and received the diagnoses of alcohol abuse disorder (mild), and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.  Based on a review of the applicant’s discharge package, there is evidence the applicant’s chain of command was aware the applicant reported being the victim of a sexual assault 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 reported to mental health and substance abuse providers a pattern of maladaptive substance use prior to the applicant’s claimed experience of military sexual trauma.  Based on review of the available records, the applicant’s contended experience of MST occurred around May 2017.  There is evidence the applicant’s pattern of maladaptive substance use began prior to May 2017 and persisted after.  Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant reported she was using alcohol and misusing Corcidin due to “boredom” and “peer pressure.”  There is also evidence in the applicant’s records from her mental health provider that indicated the applicant may have been experiencing distress related to her assault and pending legal problems.  Furthermore, there is evidence the applicant’s experience of MST and her mental health condition were known and considered during the applicant’s discharge process and may have mitigated her discharge.

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Although there is evidence the applicant’s experience of MST and her mental health condition may have mitigated her discharge, there is insufficient evidence the applicant’s condition outweighed the discharge.  The applicant was discharged due to serious misconduct.  Although the misconduct may have been mitigated by the applicant’s experience of MST, the applicant’s records revealed the applicant’s maladaptive substance use began prior to her experience of MST and persisted after, and thus does not outweigh the egregious misconduct for which the applicant received a General discharge.  

Additionally, the applicant contended that she did not receive a proper medical examination prior to her discharge that addressed the effects of PTSD or sexual assault.  Based on a review of the applicant’s medical records, a Separation Health Physical Exam was conducted on 2 Feb 2018 and again on 11 Jan 2019. 
On 2 February 2018 the provider noted the applicant denied any suicidal/homicidal ideations, depression, anxiety, or panic.  The applicant also reported she had no medical concerns that would interfere with her possible separation from active duty.  No medical contraindications to separation from the Air Force, including from a MH perspective, were noted during the 11 January 2019 separation exam.  

The Board also 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 and to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority.  The DRB also voted unanimously to deny 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 shall remain, the narrative reason for separation shall remain, and the reentry code shall remain.  The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 28 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)