AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00419	
					
SUMMARY:  The applicant was discharged on 21 January 2020 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Serious Offense).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization, a change to the discharge narrative reason and associated separation code, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility 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 providing alcohol to a minor and posting offensive comments on social media.  

The applicant contended he was dealing with mental health issues while in the military.  He developed debilitating anxiety while attending technical training and did not realize the extent of treatment he should have received.  He was also afraid to receive treatment fearing negative repercussions on his career.  He claimed that instead of receiving help for his stressors he was met with hostile leadership that only increased his stressors.  He further claimed when he sought avenues for assistance he was arrested for misconduct and confined by military police who abused him both physically and sexually.  Based on his deteriorating mental health from mistreatment in confinement he accepted a plea bargain and pled guilty at his court-martial.  Finally, since his discharge he has been diagnosed by the VA for PTSD and is seeking treatment to manage his condition.  He requested the upgrade to have access to VA educational benefits as well give him a sense of justice.

A review of the applicant’s record revealed he provided alcohol to a minor while attending technical training.  He also posted offensive and inappropriate comments on social media.  He was punished under Article 15 for this misconduct.  The applicant continued to post offensive, racist, and abusive comments on social media.  Furthermore, he escalated his behavior by communicating threatening language on social media that indicated he “couldn’t take it anymore, was going to go on a rampage and kill as many people as he could, then kill himself.”  Posing a safety concern the applicant was placed in pre-trial confinement and court-martial charges were preferred against him.  He pled guilty at a special court-martial and was sentenced to time served.  He was subsequently administratively discharged.  

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 contend that a condition or experience may have excused or mitigated their misconduct or discharge?  

The applicant checked the box for “PTSD” on the application.

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 during his time in the military and while in confinement.  There is no evidence the applicant was diagnosed with or exhibited any clinically significant features of PTSD during his time in service.  Based on the applicant’s in service mental health records the applicant received the diagnoses of adjustment disorder with anxiety.  During the time the applicant was in confinement he received the diagnosis of major depressive disorder.  

The applicant provided one sentence of testimony in his application statement in which he contended he experienced sexual assault: “I was confined for 72 days by military police who sexually assaulted me, physically abused me, and denied me basic human rights such as access to a bathroom, food, or safe sleeping arrangements.”  There is no objective evidence or records the applicant experienced a Military Sexual Trauma (MST) during his time in service.  Additionally, the applicant did not provide any additional clarifying information about his experience of sexual assault such as a timeline or the impact of this experience.

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 (serious offense).  The applicant’s records revealed a pattern of misconduct including providing alcohol to a minor, posting hateful racially offensive material on social media, and posting threats on social media.  The testimony provided in the applicant’s statement is contradictory to the evidence in the applicant’s in-service and post-service records.  Based on the available evidence in the applicant’s records along with the applicant’s testimony in his application, there is evidence the applicant was having difficulty adjusting to military life and reported to military mental health providers that his civilian experience in the career field surpassed that of the training he was receiving, which caused him distress, frustration, and relational problems in the unit.  Furthermore, the applicant reported he chose to use social media as an outlet, but in a way that was incompatible with military service, which may explain the applicant’s maladaptive behavior, but it did not mitigate the applicant’s misconduct.
 
There is evidence the applicant was referred to and received mental health services during his military legal proceedings and time in confinement.  While military legal proceeding and confinement can be stressful, they do not constitute a mental health condition that mitigates the misconduct that initiated the legal proceedings.  The applicant referenced his diagnosis by the VA as evidence to substantiate his 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.

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 his discharge characterization to Honorable, to change the discharge narrative reason and associated separation code to Secretarial Authority, and to change 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 5 December 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)