AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00412	
					
SUMMARY:  The applicant was discharged on 29 December 2021 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge.  The applicant appealed for a change to her separation code.

The applicant was not represented by counsel.    

The applicant 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 vacation of suspended non-judicial punishment action, and multiple Letters of Reprimand.  Her misconduct included:  wrongful appropriation of a rental vehicle, grand theft auto, false insurance claims, fraud, and domestic assault.    

The applicant contended she was not given a good explanation at the time of her discharge or given fair guidance.  She claimed she has matured since her discharge and would like the opportunity to serve again.  The applicant checked the mental health block on her application but did not provide any information to support the contention.  

A review of the applicant’s record revealed she had several incidents of misconduct.  She failed to return a rental car and was arrested by local police for grand theft auto.  She also wrongfully appropriated another rental car.  Furthermore, she attempted to file false/fraudulent claims with her insurance company.  Finally, she was involved in a domestic incident with her spouse where she hit him with a liquor bottle.  She waived her right to consult counsel or submit a statement/response to the discharge notification.

LIBERAL CONSIDERATION:

Due to evidence of a mental health condition found in the applicant’s medical record, and the applicant’s contention of a mental health condition, 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 her application.  The applicant did not make any other mental health contentions or provide any evidence or testimony to substantiate her claim of “other mental health” in service.  The applicant contended she would like to be able to reenter the military.  She didn’t feel like she had been given a fair chance or explanation when discharged, and wasn’t given fair guidance.  She was also pregnant at the time she was discharged from the military and claimed she had more to offer.

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

Based on a review of the applicant’s records, there is no evidence the applicant received any mental health services during her time in service.  There is evidence the applicant was command referred to Family Advocacy Program due to allegations of intimate partner maltreatment.

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 disciplinary infractions, including misappropriation of a vehicle, making false claims with intent to defraud, and violence against another person.  There is no evidence the applicant sought or received any mental health treatment during her time in service.  There is also no evidence the applicant exhibited any clinically significant features of a mental health condition during her time in service or any evidence a mental health condition caused or mitigated the misconduct that led to the applicant’s discharge. 

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

There is no evidence to substantiate the applicant’s contention that she had a mental health condition in service.  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 changing the applicant’s separation code.  The DRB also voted unanimously to deny upgrading the discharge characterization to Honorable, changing the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority, and 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 associated separation code, and the reentry code shall not change.  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)