AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00454

SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 29 January 2013 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 code.

The applicant was 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, a vacation of suspended non-judicial punishment, and a Letter of Reprimand. His misconduct included:  struck a sign with vehicle, then failed to report the accident; wrongfully made contact with spouse which violated a no contact order; and shoved spouse into a wall with his hands. 

The applicant through counsel contended that the member was unjustly and unfairly discharged with an inequitable characterization. They explained that the misconduct the member was discharged for was minor and were isolated incidents. They stated that he was discharged for three incidents which were, hitting a sign and failing to report it and breaking a no contact order. They highlighted that the third reason was based on exaggerated and false allegations and therefore should not be held against him. 

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The consequences given for the applicant’s misconduct were appropriate based on the severity and the nature of the misconduct and do not warrant an upgrade of the discharge. The Board noted that the commander considered all circumstances prior to initiating the discharge and concluded that the applicant’s discharge was 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 have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? 

The applicant made no claim or contention that a mental health condition caused or substantially contributed to the misconduct that led to the applicant’s discharge.
 
2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 

There is evidence the applicant received mental health services during his time in service and received the diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety, and adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features. There is evidence the applicant was referred to Family Advocacy Program during his time in service. 

3. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 

The applicant, through counsel, contended “after evaluating the applicant’s entire record, the minor misconduct is so minor it does not rise to the level of separation, nor a General characterization.” Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant’s basis for discharge included a pattern of misconduct including failing to report an auto accident, failing to obey a lawful order (violation of a no-contact order), and unlawfully shoving another into a wall. Furthermore, liberal consideration is generally not applied in circumstances involving harm to others. Thus, liberal consideration does not provide relief for this applicant’s request. The applicant made no claim or contention that a mental health condition caused or substantially contributed to the misconduct that led to the applicant’s discharge. There is evidence the applicant was referred to and intermittently received mental health services while awaiting and receiving disciplinary action and non-judicial punishment for his misconducts. While disciplinary action proceedings can be stressful, they do not constitute a mental health condition that mitigates the misconduct that initiated the proceedings.  There is also evidence the applicant reported stress related to his wife adjusting to the military lifestyle and was involved with Family Advocacy related to allegations of intimate partner physical and emotional maltreatment for more than two years.   

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Based on review of the applicant’s records, the totality of the applicant’s circumstances were known and fully considered by the applicant’s command during the discharge process. The commander noted in the applicant’s recommendation for discharge memorandum “Before recommending this discharge I considered [the applicant’s] entire military record as well as his misconduct. It is true that the [the applicant] has done good deeds for the community while stationed here at [named AFB]. His behavior, however, demonstrates that he is clearly not suited for military life and specifically, following direction of military command. I issued [the applicant] a no-contact order for [applicant’s wife], which he knowingly and purposefully violated on [date], and for which he received and Article 15. I considered [the applicant’s] response to the Article 15 and decided to suspend a portion of his punishment. Not two and half months later, [the applicant] unlawfully shoved his wife into a wall. I have considered both these events and the positive aspects of [the applicant’s] record, including his performance and his volunteer work. I recommend 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.”  The Board considered the factors listed in paragraphs (6)(a)-(6)(l) and (7)(a)-(7)(r) of this memorandum. 

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 and medical records, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was proper. 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 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)