AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00505	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 09 September 2021 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General Discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge reenlistment eligibility code.

The applicant was not represented by counsel.    

The applicant 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 Discharge Review Board (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 (LOR), and multiple Letters of Counseling.  Her misconduct included:  Negligently failed to complete a work order; failed to complete a quality check to unit’s yard; failed to follow dress and appearance standards by coming into work with an unauthorized purse; failed dorm room inspection and when reassessed, there were still discrepancies; displayed unprofessional conduct after leaving the Commander’s office after receipt of a LOR; exclaimed that she was going to flip her desk if her orders were cancelled; insinuated that if her orders were cancelled, she was going to get herself kicked out, and that she was going to do it the right way; addressed an NCO as “bro,” and started clapping her hands at her repeatedly, stating, “Can I talk now?”; left for the day without completing duties, and when a SNCO called to direct her to return, she hung up on them; arrived late to PT; failed to obtain the appointment slip that was requested of her; arrived late to work; late on two (2) occasions; and showed up for duty without proper uniform accessories. 

The applicant requested that her reentry code be upgraded so she may reenlist, as it will enable her to strive toward her goals and help those who were in similar situations.

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.  Additionally, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to show that she would now be able to adjust and conform to military standards, nor that she has since been rehabilitated.  

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 (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 box for “other mental health” on the application.  The applicant contended “Due to lack of discipline, I did not know or understand how to separate or balance my work and personal life which often would cause me to break my military barring while talking to superiors.” 
 
2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 

A review of the applicant’s records revealed the applicant had one session at the mental health clinic during her time in service.  The applicant’s records revealed the applicant was assessed by mental health subsequent to the applicant making statements to her leadership in response to receiving disciplinary action that were interpreted as suicidal ideation.  The applicant’s records reveal she denied any mental health symptoms and declined further services.  There is no evidence or records the applicant exhibited any clinically significant features of a mental health condition during her time in service. 

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

A review of the applicant’s in-service records revealed the applicant was discharged due to misconduct, minor infractions.  The applicant contended in her personal statement “I chose to be late, disrespect my NCO, lacked military barring and failed to obey 36-2903 which were all unacceptable.”  The applicant also stated, “All the things mentioned above are the very reasons that I had a hard time adjusting to depending on and trusting my leadership or even being comfortable enough to go to them even when I knew I needed it.”  There is no evidence a mental health condition caused the misconduct that led to the applicant’s discharge.  There is evidence the applicant exhibited and endorsed difficulty adjusting to the military lifestyle and poor coping skills which may explain the applicant’s misconduct, but it does not constitute a mental health condition and does not mitigate 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. 

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade her 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 and equitable.  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 Air Force DRB (AFDRB) results were approved by the board president on 3 March 2023.  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)