BER SITIING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
						x	
						x	
						x	
						x	
						x	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AFSNISSAN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANll.AT ONOFCOUNSEL

MEM

ISSUES	A67.50	INDEX NUMBER	A67.50	
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
		l		
		2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION	
		4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
			COUNSEL'SRELEASE TO THE BOARD	
			ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE  HEARING	
H£AIUNGDATE

30 Jan 2014	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00156			

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 will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 CSTREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANOOLPH AFB, TX 781504742

SECRETARY OF 11IEAIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISOIARGE REVIEW BQARD 1535 COMlltAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

CASE NUMBER
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE     FD-2013-00156

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, 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), via video teleconference between Andrews AFB Maryland and Warner Robins AFB Georgia on 30 January 2014.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit #6: Applicant's Medical Records from the Department of Veterans Affairs

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. After a review of the record, the Board unanimously voted to deny the relief of the requested upgrade as discussed below.

FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge. The change  of  reason  and  authority  for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are 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:

Issue 1. Applicant contends that his discharge was improper because it was unduly harsh as he felt he never should have been discharged or at a minimum offered probation and rehabilitation, because he was young and needed some guidance and support.

Issue 2. Applicant contends he had PTSD as a result of his deployments, and that should have  been sufficiently mitigating with respect to the service characterization he received.

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, and multiple Letters of Reprimand and Letters of Counseling.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The applicant provided medical records indicating that the VA diagnosed him with PTSD.  The records however don't indicate that there was a triggering event for his PTSD that has a military nexus.
Additionally, the applicant was receiving mental health care from the Air Force for a personality disorder, and there is nothing in the records that indicate that his mental health condition was so severe that he could not appreciate the nature of his actions or be held fully responsible for them.  The Board also noted that the applicants' misconduct  was significant -violating orders in a deployed environment and soliciting prostitutes.   The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career. The characterization of the discharge and selected basis received by the applicant were found to be appropriate.

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 and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief