AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00453	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 19 November 2010 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a “General” discharge for “Misconduct (Minor Infractions).”  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB), without counsel, via video teleconference using Zoom on 7 February 2023.  No witnesses were present to testify on the applicant’s behalf. 

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 AFDRB, 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, a Letter of Reprimand, and a Letter of Counseling.  His misconduct included failing to refrain from using his Government Travel Card (GTC) for unofficial purposes.  He was also derelict in performance of duty and driving under the influence.

The applicant requested a change to his characterization to “Honorable.”  He also wanted to change his reentry code.  The applicant stated that he had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with Substance Abuse Syndrome, which is service connected.  He noted that his Substance Abuse Syndrome has been in remission.  He indicated his PTSD was directly related to his actions and mistakes, which led to his discharge. 

The DRB determined the applicant had multiple opportunities to correct his misconduct.  The applicant’s condition does not mitigate his discharge and does not outweigh his discharge.

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 PTSD; Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI); sexual assault, and sexual harassment.  The Board considered the following: 

1. Did the veteran have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? 

The applicant checked the boxes for “PTSD” and “TBI” on the application.  The applicant contended “I have a service-connected PTSD with Substance Abuse Syndrome (in remission) my actions and mistakes made which I was discharged for were related to my PTSD which was undiagnosed at the time.  I was punished due to an incident related to alcohol and unsound judgment.  I was diagnosed with a blunt force traumatic brain injury from an injury sustained during deployment to Camp Bucca Iraq.”  

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

There is no evidence the applicant sought or received any mental health treatment during his time in service. There is no evidence the applicant received the diagnosis of PTSD during his time in service.  There is no evidence the exhibited any clinically significant features of a mental health condition during his time in service. There is evidence the applicant was command referred to ADAPT during his time in service and completed the alcohol education classes.  

A review of the applicant’s in service medical records did not reveal any history of head injury or TBI sustained during the applicant’s time in service.  There is evidence the applicant reported to his PCM that he experienced headaches due to his previous history of boxing, examinations and scans performed during the applicant’s time in service revealed no head trauma, no acute intracranial pathology.   

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 misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions.  A review of the applicant’s records revealed his pattern of maladaptive substance use began prior to his time in service and prior to his deployments.  There is no evidence the applicant endorsed any symptoms of a mental health condition during his time in service.  The applicant reported during his personal appearance hearing that there were likely inconsistencies in his in-service record and his post service records that included his report of what occurred in service and pre service.  The applicant stated his in-service records were the most reliable account of what occurred during his time in service. During the applicant’s personal appearance hearing, the applicant reported he used alcohol heavily that increased over his time in service and stated his alcohol use contributed to his misconduct in service.  There is no evidence or records the applicant endorsed any mental health symptoms during his time in service.  The applicant stated during his personal appearance testimony that he did not report or endorse any mental health symptoms during his time in service.  There is no evidence the applicant’s maladaptive substance use in service was due to an underlying mental health condition.  

Based on the available evidence and records, the applicant’s claimed mental health condition as likely as not developed post-service. Regarding the applicant’s concurrence with his VA diagnoses, 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 had a mental health condition that caused or mitigated the misconduct(s) which led to the applicant’s discharge.  Because the applicant’s condition does not mitigate his discharge, it does not outweigh his discharge. 

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Because the applicant’s condition does not mitigate his discharge, it does not outweigh his discharge. 

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.”  

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to “Honorable,” to change the discharge narrative reason 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/medical record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was proper and equitable. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain “General,” the narrative reason for separation shall remain “Misconduct (Minor Infractions),” and the reentry code shall remain “2B.”  The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 13 March 2023.  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)