AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAM E OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)

TYPE BCD	x	I	PERSONAL A PPEARANCE	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAM £ OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS Al'l'D OR ORGAiXIZATIONOP COUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OFTHE BOARD
MEM BER  SITTING	!ION	GEN	UOTI-IC	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
x x x
x
ISSUES	A94.53	INDEX Nt MBtR	A68.00	EXlllOITSSUB'.\'IJTTED TO THE BOARD
1  ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDI NG OF PERSONAL APPEARA NCE HEARING

HEA RING DATE	CA.S[ NU\1BER

13 May 2015	FD-2012-00410
APPLICAN'T "S ISSUE AND THE BOAJ\D"S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATrACttED AfR fORCE DISCHARGE REV!h-W BOARD DECISIONAL RA"nONALE .

Case heard  i n Wash ington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an appl ication to the AFBCMR.

(b) (6)

INDORSEMENT	DATE:    6/l6/2015
TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SF.CR F.TARV OPTHE AIR FORCF. PERSONNF.I.COUNCii.
AI R FORCE DISCHARG E RE\ll f.W BOARD
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40	153.S COMMAND DR , '£ £ \\!I NC. JR.D FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB. MD 0762-7001

AFHQ FORJ'\1. 0-.2077, JA   00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2012-00410	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to General.

The applicant was offered a personal  appearance before the Discharge  Review Board (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING:  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge

ISSUE:  The applicant received a Bad Conduct Discharge

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the characterization of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. 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 ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  In order to adhere to Mental Health Amendments to  10 USC  1553, a physician with specialized
training on mental health disorders was present for this board. The applicant's record of service included one Special Court Martial Order dated November 15111, 2005 finding applicant guilty for the use of Methamphetamine.

The applicant submitted no issues regarding the inequity or impropriety of her discharge.  The applicant does state that she was undergoing treatment for depression and dental problems at the time of discharge and she  is unable to request assistance from Veteran 's Affairs due to the nature of her discharge.  Applicant mentioned that she was being seen for depression at the time of her discharge and after a thorough review of        records, all mental health appointments were made post court-martial and it was determined that her depression was not a mitigating factor in her drug use.  After review of the record, the Board found no evidence to indicate that the applicant did not know right from wrong or that in her four years of service was unaware of the Air Force policy of zero tolerance to drug use.
Due to the applicant receiving a Bad Conduct Discharge, a punitive discharge, as part of her sentence resulting from a Special Court-Martial conviction, under the provisions of Section  1553, I 0 USC, the only basis for a change of a Bad Conduct discharge is clemency. The applicant presented no evidence which the DRB could consider for granting clemency.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation , was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

The Discharge Review Board concluded that the applicant's punitive discharge by Special Court-Martial is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case and there is insufficient basis, as an act of clemency, for change of discharge.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief