AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00442	
					
SUMMARY:  The applicant was discharged on 18 August 2021 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Under Other Than Honorable (UOTHC) discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-martial.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization.

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 contended his service was not dishonorable and his discharge characterization did not accurately reflect who he is as a person, and is not an appropriate reflection of his service.  He contended an accusation was made against him that had no solid evidence or basis, had discrepancies, and unprofessional influence from higher ranking individuals tainted his career and branded him with a UOTHC discharge.  He claimed the OSI agent(s) who investigated the case acted improperly and inappropriately and were subsequently fired.  He also claimed the JAG pressured the victim into pursuing charges, but due to the poor handling of the investigation, the Air Force didn’t have sufficient evidence to take him to a court-martial.  Furthermore, he claimed his relationship with the victim was consensual, the victim was not credible, and she falsely accused him of assault.  He further claimed he made a mistake by accepting the Chapter 4 discharge, and only did so because of the undue stress he was under during the trial process.

A review of the applicant’s record revealed he was accused of sexual assault against a female Airman.  He stated in his application that the stress of the court-martial caused him extensive mental health problems, therefore, he accepted a Chapter 4 discharge in lieu of continuing with a trial.  According to the available records, the victim concurred with the disposition of the charges through his request for an administrative discharge with a UOTHC service characterization.

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 his application.  The applicant contended in the months after he found out he was being accused of sexual assault his life declined.  The applicant also stated in his application that his squadron abandoned him, he was an outcast, and labeled a rapist.  He sought help but was advised to stay away from the base mental health clinic by his legal team.  The applicant further contended that he made a mistake in accepting the Chapter 4, but in the mindset he was in, he could not have made the right choice.

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

There is evidence the applicant sought and received mental health care during his time in service related to anxiety following a car accident.  Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant reported symptoms of a racing heart while driving and financial stressors related to the accident.  There is no evidence or records the applicant was diagnosed with or exhibited any clinically significant indicators of PTSD during his 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 requested discharge in lieu of a trial by court martial.  The applicant detailed in his application statement his accomplishments and achievements prior to being accused of sexual misconduct and referred to that time period as “normal conditions.”  The applicant made no claim or contention that a mental health condition caused or substantially contributed to the misconduct that led to his discharge.  While military legal proceedings can be stressful, they do not constitute a mental health condition that mitigated the misconduct that initiated the legal proceedings.  

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

There is no evidence of a nexus between the applicant’s in-service mental health condition and the misconduct for which he was discharged.  Because the applicant’s discharge is not mitigated by a mental health condition, 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.  The DRB also voted unanimously to deny 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 the reentry code shall not change.  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)