AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00472	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 4 October 2007 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge for a Pattern of Misconduct. The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization and a change to the discharge narrative reason.

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, multiple Letters of Reprimand, and multiple Letters of Counseling.  His misconduct included:  reported to commander in civilian attire to be served an Article 15; absented himself from his unit from on or about 17 November to on or about 27 November; absented himself from his unit on or about 23 February to on or about 7 March; on divers occasions, had intercourse with a woman not his spouse(multiple instances); dishonorably failed to pay debt; disregarded orders to arrive at work at 0730; tested positive for THC during a command directed urinalysis; and admitted to delinquency of payment in the amount of $1963 to a lending company.

The applicant through counsel contended that the discharge was inequitable because he suffered from a mitigating mental health condition and his exemplary service record and character were not fully considered during his discharge. The applicant explained that he had years of exemplary reviews prior to suffering from life stressors and mental health conditions. He continued to say that these conditions contributed to his performance decline and ultimately resulted in the conduct that led to his discharge. The applicant requested an upgrade of the character to General or Honorable and a change of the narrative reason. 

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 record revealed that command was well aware and considered the applicant’s mental health conditions during the discharge process. Specifically, he had a command directed evaluation based on their concern of his symptoms and he also contended these mental health conditions in his response to the discharge notification. Additionally, the Mental Health Advisor found that no mental health issues were reported prior to the misconduct. The Board deemed 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 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 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, through counsel, checked the box for “other mental health” on the application. The applicant, through counsel, contended “In short, I had years of exemplary reviews and performance prior to suffering from life stressors and a mental health condition (including a suicide attempt during my service.) Those conditions contributed to my performance decline, and I believe ultimately resulted in the conduct that led to my discharge.”

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

There is evidence the applicant received mental health care during his time in service. Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant received the diagnosis, in service, of adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct. 

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

Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant’s mental health symptoms began after his misconduct and subsequent disciplinary actions. Based on the information in the application and the applicant’s records, the applicant did not experience or report any significant mental health symptoms prior to his misconduct and in fact reported superior performance. There is evidence the applicant reported difficulty coping with the multiple stressors that occurred simultaneously after he was under investigation for misconduct including financial stressors, relationship discord, and occupational issues. There is evidence the applicant was referred to and received mental health services after reporting depressive symptoms to his PCM related to financial issues and disciplinary proceedings. While military disciplinary actions can be stressful, they do not constitute a mental health condition that mitigates the misconduct that initiated the disciplinary action, nor is it likely that a mental health condition would cause or mitigate the nature of the applicant’s misconduct. 

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Because the applicant’s condition does not mitigate his discharge, the discharge 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 did not find any factors that mitigated 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/medical record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was proper. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, 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 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)