No                                                                                                                                                     AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00461	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 17 October 2008 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General Discharge for Pattern of Misconduct.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade to his discharge narrative reason and 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 21 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 RE 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 Letters of Reprimand.  The applicant’s misconduct included being derelict in performance of duties by making unauthorized purchases of his Government Travel Card (GTC).  The applicant was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) and was cited for urinating in public on the lawn of a resident.  

The Board conducted a thorough review of the documents submitted by the applicant, the applicant’s Automated Records Management (ARMS) service records, and other documentary evidence.  The Board recognizes the progress the applicant made post-service.  They also recognized the maladaptive alcohol abuse the applicant was dealing with; however, the applicant was offered treatment and had multiple opportunities to ask for help and chose to not seek help.  The applicant’s misconduct does not mitigate his actions.

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 (4) 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 checked the boxes for “PTSD” and “Other mental health” on the application.  The applicant made no mental health contentions; the applicant contended “this change is requested in efforts to pursue educational goals, building new avenues to venture into the entrepreneur role.  I have a new fiancé and some additions to the family that I need to make sure are secure.  This adjustment of my separation code would help me in providing that for them.” 

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 a diagnosis of PTSD during his time in service.  Based on a review of the applicant’s military medical records, there is no evidence the applicant exhibited any clinically significant indicators of PTSD or any other mental health condition, during his time in service.  There is evidence the applicant was referred to the Family Advocacy Program during his time in service.  There is evidence the applicant was command referred to ADAPT during his time in service and recommend for Level One treatment and subsequently for administrative separation due to refusing to participate in further alcohol treatment after receiving a DUI while enrolled in the ADAPT program.  A review of the applicant’s records revealed the applicant received the diagnosis of alcohol abuse 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 a pattern of misconduct.  The applicant made no contention of a mitigating mental health condition in his application.  The applicant reported during his personal appearance that the loss of his grandmother was the initial incident that triggered his excessive drinking.  The applicant reported he never told anyone he was struggling with the grief and did not seek help because he was prideful and did not want help.  During his personal appearance hearing, the applicant reported he was never given a chance to fully participate in the ADAPT program because he received a DUI after he was command referred to the program for a drunk and disorderly incident.  The applicant acknowledged during his personal appearance hearing that he knew he was required to abstain from alcohol use as a condition of enrollment in ADAPT but was unable to remain sober. The applicant stated during his personal appearance hearing that he knew he needed help, but he did not ask for help and was discharged.  The applicant reported during his personal appearance hearing that he was command referred to the Family Advocacy program due to an alcohol related domestic dispute at a bar; the applicant also noted in his personal appearance hearing that he did not request or want the help he was mandated to receive.  The applicant did not report any mitigating mental health conditions during his personal appearance hearing and there is no evidence or a record of a nexus between the applicant’s in service unsuiting condition of alcohol dependence and an underlying mental health condition. 

The applicant requested the Board review his VA medical records.  A review of the applicant’s post service records revealed the applicant denied any mental health symptoms until 12 years post discharge at which time the applicant reported anger issues and frustration with COVID.  The applicant’s post-service records also revealed the applicant experienced post service trauma.  The applicant’s post-service records reflect he attended seven sessions of mental health treatment related to poor sleep and intrusive memories.  

Based on the available evidence and records, the applicant’s 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.

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 AFDRB and AFDRB for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations, dated 25 June 2018, known as the “Wilkie Memo.”  

FINDING:  The AFDRB 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 RE code to “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.  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain a “General,” the narrative reason for separation shall remain “Pattern of Misconduct,” 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 Board 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)