AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00491	
					
SUMMARY:  The applicant was discharged on 5 December 2014 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions).  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 an Article 15 and multiple Letters of Reprimand and Counseling. His misconduct included:  failure to go, disrespect towards an NCO, failure to participate in Physical Training (PT), failure to follow orders, and insubordinate conduct.  

The applicant contended at the time of his military service he had mental illnesses, including anxiety, depression, gender dysphoria, OCD, and BPD, that impacted his ability to perform his job correctly.  He claimed since his discharge he has received treatment for his conditions and is currently successfully employed.

A review of the applicant’s record revealed he had multiple incidents of misconduct mainly involving failure to report to duty and/or PT, failure to follow orders, and insubordinate conduct towards NCOs.  The applicant also failed multiple fitness assessments and failed to appear for mandatory PT formations multiple times. The Board did not find any evidence to indicate that a mental health condition contributed to his misconduct.  While in service, the applicant did not provide a response to several the Letters of Reprimand and Letters of Counseling he received. In the single response he provided to the non-judicial punishment, the applicant apologized for the act of misconduct and did not indicate any other concerns as contributing factors to his misconduct .  The Board found that the applicant’s chain of command acted appropriately, and the discharge was neither inequitable or improper.

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 contend that a condition or experience may have excused or mitigated their misconduct or discharge?  

The applicant checked the boxes for “other mental health” and “transgender” on the application.  The applicant contended at the time he was in the military he had undiagnosed mental illnesses including anxiety, depression, gender dysphoria, OCD, and BPD that caused him to not be able to do his job correctly.

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

There is evidence the applicant received mental health care during the applicant’s time in service.  Based on a review of the applicant’s in service records, the applicant endorsed symptoms of feeling anxious in large groups and also endorsed symptoms of a depressed mood.  The records reflected the applicant reported full symptom resolution with prescribed medication.  The applicant’s records also reflected the applicant reported he stopped the medication independently and did not want to resume.  Furthermore, the applicant’s records revealed the applicant was command referred on two occasions to ADAPT and completed alcohol education classes.  Based on a review of the applicant’s records, there is no evidence the applicant exhibited or endorsed any clinically significant indicators of gender dysphoria, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or borderline personality disorder during the applicant’s time in service.

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

The applicant submitted a two-page document titled “Health Summary” that listed the conditions “gender dysphoria in adult,” “obsessive-compulsive disorder,” “generalized anxiety disorder,” “moderate major depression, single episode,” and “borderline personality disorder” all with an “added date” of “1/23/2020.”  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 gender dysphoria, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or borderline personality disorder during the applicant’s time in service.  Based on a review of the applicant’s records, there is evidence the applicant was dissatisfied with military life, regulations and was having trouble and frustration with adjusting which may explain the applicant’s misconduct but does not mitigate the misconduct.  There is no evidence a mental health condition caused or mitigated the misconduct that led to the applicant’s discharge. 
 
4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

No error was found in review of the applicant’s records; because the applicant’s discharge is not mitigated, it 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 found no evidence of inequity or impropriety.   

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable.  The DRB also voted unanimously to deny changing the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority and changing 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, the narrative reason for separation, and the reentry code shall not change.  The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 29 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)