AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00550	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 07 January 2016 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General Discharge for Misconduct (Serious Offense).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.

The applicant was 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 Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB), 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 a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).  His misconduct included:  being pulled over by the sheriff’s office, and the deputy determined that he had not consumed any alcohol, but suspected he was on a controlled substance.  When asked again if he had consumed anything, he admitted to consuming four times the amount of his prescribed dosage of anti-anxiety medicine, a Percocet and Ibuprofen earlier that day.  Throughout the interactions with the deputy, the member was disrespectful by rolling his eyes and exhaling loudly in frustration.  

The applicant through counsel contended the discharge was inequitable.  They explained that he was unlawfully stopped and arrested by civilian law enforcement, which ultimately led to his discharge.  They stated that he was not under the influence of any substance when he was falsely arrested, and the record has since been expunged.  They took issue that the applicant was not given a chance to rehabilitate after being issued the LOR.  They stated that the discharge was unfairly premature as he was never charged, and command didn’t wait for the toxicology report.  Regarding the applicant’s mental health, they contended that the applicant meets all four (4) criteria from the Under Secretary of Defense memorandum, Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment, dated 25 August 2017, known as the "Kurta Memo," specifically factors listed the attachment, paragraph (2)(a) - (2)(d) of this memorandum  and highlighted that he should have received more mental health protection.  Lastly, they claimed that the applicant’s post service record shows he deserves an upgrade.  The applicant through counsel also contended impropriety.  They explained that the discharge was based on a serious offense, but no serious offense was ever committed.  Additionally, the command failed to meet the legal standard to issue an LOR which was the sole foundation for the discharge. 

After thorough consideration of the evidence in this case, the AFDRB determined that the discharge was inequitable.  Although the command was within its authority to take the actions in response to the infraction, the consequences were too harsh based on the nature of the misconduct.  Furthermore, there was no evidence to substantiate that any additional punishment after the demotion was warranted. 

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 box for “PTSD” on the application. The applicant, through counsel, contended the applicant’s discharge was inequitable because the basis for discharge for was a single, unfounded LOR. The applicant, through counsel, also contended the applicant “also had suffered from mental health problems and should have been afforded more protection.” The applicant, through counsel, also contend the applicant has PTSD from his time in service. 
 
2. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? 

Based on a review of the applicant’s records the applicant received mental health services during his time in service and received the diagnosis of social anxiety disorder and relational problem.  The applicant’s records reflect the applicant was command referred to ADAPT on two occasions.  There is no evidence the applicant received the diagnosis in service of PTSD; there is no evidence the applicant exhibited or endorsed any clinically significant indicators of PTSD during his time in service.  A review of the applicant’s post-service records revealed the applicant contended he had PTSD from racial related assaults that occurred in service. 

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

The applicant was discharged due to misconduct, serious offense. The applicant denied all allegations of misconduct, and stated he took his psychiatric medication 20 hours prior to the misconduct that led to his discharge.  The applicant’s statement and medical records reveal the applicant did not take his medication as prescribed and both the applicant and the records revealed the applicant was non-compliant with taking the medication as prescribed.  Further, a review of the applicant’s records revealed the applicant reported improvement in symptoms primarily through therapy and reported he did not find his symptoms to impair his duties in general but did find his anxiety symptoms to, at times, impair his ability to form meaningful relationships.  There is no evidence of a nexus between the applicant’s in-service mental conditions and the misconduct for which he was discharged. 

4. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 

Because the applicant’s misconduct is not mitigated by a mental health condition, 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 applied the appropriate factors.

FINDING:  The AFDRB voted 2 to 1 to approve the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to “Honorable.”  It voted unanimously to approve changing the discharge narrative reason to “Secretarial Authority.”  And the reenlistment eligibility code to was changed to “2C.” 

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 inequitable. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall change to “Honorable,” the narrative reason for separation shall change to “Secretarial Authority,” and the reentry code shall change to “2C.” The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 6 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)