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

X	RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

X*

DENY

X* X*

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A66.00

X* X*
1  ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETIER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

17 Apr 2014	FD-2014--00011

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.
*Narrative Reason

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB,TX 78150-4742

FROM:

SECRE.TARY OFTHE AIR FORCE rf.RSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE Rf.VIEW BOARD
1535 COtMAND DR, El:WING, JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00011	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable

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 grants the requested relief.
ISSUE: Applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct: Drug Abuse

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 character 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 did complete 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. The Applicant's record of service included one Letter of Admonishment, three Letters of Reprimand and seven Letters of Counseling. Applicant's misconduct included; failed to verify contents of simulator kit, failed to go to PT, failed to go to Commander's call, failed to go to duty on ti1J1e, failed to obey order from direct supervisor, failed to comply with order to perform weekend standby duty, failed to meet deadline for retake of security exam, failed to go to duty and report to sick call, improperly used prescription medication by ingesting 20 amitriptyline pills.

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable and unjust due to it being based on one incident in 59 months of service. He also would like to go back to school and use his Montgomery G.I. Bill. The records reflect that on December 20, 2012, applicant was evaluated for substance·misuse and or abuse. After a clinical interview, records screening, and a review of the substance use history, it was determined the member did not meet the criteria for alcohol or substance abuse. There were also other' notes dated January 4, 2013 diagnosing applicant with adjustment disorder with depressed mood and probable personality disorder. The Board opined that while the applicant's mental health condition did not predicate or mitigate his instances of misconduct, several of the incidents, could possibly be tied to his adjustment disorder or depressed mood. After a complete and thorough review of the applicant's records, the Board opined the primary reason for discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The Board agreed to change the applicant's reason and authority for discharge; however the reenlistment code will remain unchanged.

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.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief