AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00468	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 20 September 2007 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General Discharge for Misconduct. 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’s record of service included multiple Article 15s and a Letter of Reprimand.  His misconduct included:  failed to refrain from consuming alcoholic beverages while under the age of 21 (two offenses) and was found with alcoholic beverages in his dorm room while under the age of 21.

The applicant stated that he was discharged for underage drinking. He explained that he believes, and his doctors agree, that his PTSD in service caused the misconduct that resulted in his discharge. The applicant concluded that he served honorable aside from the drinking and always did his best. 

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant did not provide evidence to substantiate his claim that he had PTSD while in service. As noted by the mental health advisor, the applicant’s diagnosis of PTSD occurred approximately 13 years post-service and no nexus to the misconduct could be found. 

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 checked the “PTSD” box on the application; the applicant contended “I was discharged for underaged drinking I have since been diagnosed with and received service connection for PTSD.  I believe (and my doctors agree) that my alcohol abuse was related to my service-connected disability.”  

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 exhibited any clinically significant features of PTSD, or any other mental health condition, during his time in service. There is no evidence or records to substantiate the applicant’s contention that he developed PTSD during his time in service. The applicant submitted a report and psychological testing conducted in 2020 (13 years post service) that concluded the applicant exhibits symptoms consistent with PTSD;  this report does not reference any symptoms incurred during the applicant’s time in service other that noting “While he was in the Air Force, he had some trouble with underage drinking and then had a DUI in 2008, after which he had to attend counseling again.” The applicant’s service records revealed the applicant was command referred to ADAPT on two separate occasions for alcohol related misconduct. 

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

Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant was discharged due to misconduct. The applicant submitted select VA records as evidence to substantiate his contentions. Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant maintained a career in survival and evasion training, similar to SERE. There is evidence the applicant received a diagnosis at the VA of PTSD 15 years post-service. Based on the available evidence and records, the applicant’s mental health condition as likely as not developed post-service. There is no evidence the applicant exhibited or endorsed any clinically significant indicators of PTSD during his time in 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 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 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 factors that would mitigate the misconduct. 

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 equitable and proper. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain “General”, the narrative reason for separation shall remain “Misconduct”, and the reentry code shall remain “2B”. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 20 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)