AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00421	
					
SUMMARY:  The applicant was discharged on 13 October 2020 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the 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 multiple Article 15s and a vacation of suspended non-judicial punishment.  His misconduct included:  incapacitation for duty, drunk and disorderly conduct, and assault.  

The applicant contended he experienced a traumatic event while deployed to Iraq which caused him to have severe mental health issues including PTSD.  He claimed he began to abuse alcohol to cope with his symptoms which eventually resulted in his discharge.  

A review of the applicant’s record revealed he had multiple incidents of alcohol related misconduct.  He was twice punished under Article 15, UCMJ and also had suspended punishment vacated.  He was twice enrolled in the ADAPT program and deemed a program failure due to non-compliance in post treatment.  His unit pursued administrative discharge action against the applicant for ADAPT program failure.  He submitted a lengthy service probation request, which was subsequently denied, and his discharge was approved.  

The record also revealed the applicant began experiencing seizures which were exacerbated by alcohol use.  He met a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and was found unfit for duty due to a seizure disorder magnified by alcohol use/abuse and withdrawal.  The PEB recommended he be permanently retired.  Per Air Force policy, his case was forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council to decide if he should be administratively discharged or medically retired.  The Air Force Personnel Board reviewed the applicant’s entire military and medical record.  The Board found the level of treatment provided by the Air Force adequate, the applicant was non-compliant with treatment, and determined administrative discharge was more appropriate.  
  
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” and “other mental health” on the application.  The applicant contended he experienced a traumatic event in Iraq causing severe mental health issues that included PTSD. He began to self-medicate with alcohol that turned into abuse and eventually he was discharged.

2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 
There is evidence the applicant received mental health care during his time in service.  Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant received the diagnoses in service of Alcohol use disorder, severe, and depressive disorder, recurrent, mild.  The applicant’s records revealed he was command referred and medically referred to ADAPT on multiple occasions during his time in service and received inpatient, partial inpatient, and outpatient treatment during his time in service.  The applicant’s records also revealed he received Family Advocacy Services during his time in service.

3. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
A review of the applicant’s records revealed the applicant was discharged due to alcohol rehabilitation failure.  The records revealed the applicant’s discharge was processed as a dual-action case (seizures disorder magnified by alcohol use) and the applicant was recommended for administrative discharge.  The records revealed the applicant had alcohol related misconduct beginning in 2014; and the incidents involved confrontations with his supervisors, ongoing issues with his spouse, suspected alcohol use during work, and aggressive behavior toward others.  Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant was an inconsistent historian regarding his mental health symptoms and his alcohol use.  There is evidence the applicant reported to providers many times that he believed he had PTSD and he reported sleep issues as his primary symptom.  The records revealed the applicant was evaluated many times for PTSD symptoms and did not exhibit features consistent with PTSD; although the records did reflect the applicant noted varying exposures to experiences he identified as traumatic.  The records also revealed the applicant reported his symptoms were substantially reduced or even alleviated when he abstained from alcohol use for long durations.  Based on a review of the applicant records the applicant’s mood symptoms were likely onset by his heavy and maladaptive patterns of substance use and not an underlying mental health condition.  Alcohol dependence, as revealed by the applicant’s records to be the primary condition, is an unsuiting condition that is incompatible with military service.  While the applicant’s maladaptive alcohol use may explain the applicant’s discharge, it does not mitigate it.

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 
Because the applicant’s discharge is not mitigated 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 and to change the discharge narrative reason and associated separation code 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 19 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)