AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00507	
					
SUMMARY:  The applicant was discharged on 3 November 2014 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge characterization.

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 multiple Article 15s, multiple Letters of Reprimand and Letters of Counseling.  Her misconduct included: failure to go, contributing alcohol to a minor, making false official statements, and incapacitation for duty.  

The applicant contended she was in a toxic relationship while in the service that led her to self-medicate with alcohol.  She also claimed in addition to her relationship problems she struggled with feeling overwhelmed with everyday tasks, concentrating, and focusing.  She claimed she spoke to her supervisor about her issues and that she suspected she may have ADHD.  She further claimed the supervisor told her she needed to pull herself together because she could be discharged if she was diagnosed with ADHD.  Finally, she claimed she was command referred to ADAPT, not mental health, and she did not talk about the issues she was experiencing with ADAPT staff.

A review of the applicant’s records revealed she had multiple issues of misconduct during her service in the Air Force.  She received multiple Letters of Counseling and Reprimand and was punished under Article 15 twice.  In some of her responses to disciplinary actions she claimed she was struggling with mental health issues and was seeking mental health treatment. After a thorough review of the applicant’s medical and service records, the Board did not find any evidence to indicate that the applicant’s mental health condition contributed to her 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 box for “other mental health” on the application.  The applicant contended she was in a toxic relationship, feeling overwhelmed with everyday tasks and reporting to work on time, and misusing alcohol.

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

The applicant’s records revealed the applicant received mental health care in service.  There is also evidence the applicant was command referred to ADAPT during her time in service.  Based on a review of the applicant’s records, the applicant received the diagnosis, in service, of adjustment disorder, with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct.  The records revealed the applicant described symptom development in response to relational stressors and difficulty coping with stressors contributed to additional occupational and legal problems.

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, minor infractions.  The applicant stated in her application her chain of command sent her to ADAPT but not to Mental Health to deal with her anxiety and ADHD and she didn’t talk to the counselor about her mental health struggles.  In the applicant’s response to the discharge notification, she claimed it had been very hard for her to deal with her personal problems and not let them affect her work.  The applicant also stated she had taken some steps to stay on track, and with the help she was receiving from the mental health clinic, she started to see a change in herself.  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? 

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 her 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)