AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD REARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FrRST MIOOLE 11\ITJAL)

GRADE	AFSNISSAN

RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS All'D OR ORCANIU\ TION OF COUNSEL

x
Vqll:OF

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

X*+

X*+ X*+
X*+

I SSUES

A93.23
A94.53
A93.01

INDtX NUMBER

A28.10

EXHIBITS SUBMITIED TOTHE BOARD
1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICAilON FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LEITER OF NOTIFICATlON
4 BRIEFOF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL  EXHIBITS  SUBMITTED AT  TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARAN CE

X*+

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

ll EARJNC DATE	CASE SUMBER

27 Jan 2014	FD-2012-00652

Case heard in Washington, 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 application to the AFBCMR.

Names and votes wil l be made available to the applicant al the applicant's request.

*RE Code
+Narrative Reason

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C' STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78 150-4742

FROM:

S£CR£TAltV  OFTllEAI R  .-ORCE  rellS01'N[L COUNCIL AIR FORCE OISCHARCt REVIEW BOARD
I	COMMAND OR,tE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB.MD 20761 7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2012-00652	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals to change the reason and authority for the discharge and to change the reenlistment  code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference between Andrews AFB Maryland and Randolph AFB Texas on 27 Jan 2014.

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

FINDING: The Board denies the change of reason and authority for discharge and change of reenlistment is denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:   Applicant received An Honorable discharge for Adjustment Disorder.

Applicant submitted no issues regarding the inequity or impropriety of her discharge. The applicant  does submit she deserves a second chance to re-enter the Air Force as an Air National Guard (ANG) member, but her reenlistment code is preventing her from doing so. She submits that she made mistakes in her previous enlistment, but is older now and knows she can do better. She includes a letter from a clinical psychologist from the Department of Veterans Affairs in Mountain Home, TN indicating applicant "was determined not have a current mental disorder of any type" and confirmed that she "is not receiving treatment for any mental health disorder." The letter is not dated, but states that she was seen on August 17, 2011 for a Mental Disorders examination for the VA Compensation and Pension following her discharge. The record indicates applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder which was determined to be so severe as to significantly impair her ability to function in' a military environment. The Board found the letter from the VA psychologist did not overcome the fact the applicant had a documented Adjustment Disorder while she was serving in the military. The Board also found it reasonable that the applicant's symptoms of Adjustment Disorder were abated when the causative stressor, military service, was no longer in place. While the Board was pleased to find the applicant was adjusting to civilian life, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to indicate her discharge was either inequitable or improper or that she would now be able to adjust to a military environment, especially with the increased probability of deployment in the ANG. The Board finds it in the best interest of the Air Force and the member to deny her request for a change to her discharge. After considering the entire record and the applicant's testimony, the Board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant a change to the discharge.

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

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, change of narrative reason for discharge or reenlistment code, and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief