AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE
2017-02-22	CASE NUMBER FD-2014- 00663	
TYPE
General	X	PERSONAL APPEARANCE		NON-PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL	
Yes	No			
X				
MEMBER SITTING	VOTE OF THE BOARD	
	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
(b) (6)	X					
(b) (6)	X					
(b) (6)	X					
(b) (6)	X					
(b) (6)	X					
(b) (6)						
ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED 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 RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING	
APPLICANT’S ISSUE AND THE BOARD’S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.	
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.

(b) (6)

SIGNATURE OF BOARD PRESIDENT	DATE: 4/17/2017	
TO:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	FROM:
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001	
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00663	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization to Honorable.

Pursuant to 10 USC §1553 this board included a member who is a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with training on mental health issues connected with post traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury and/or special training on mental health disorders.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Joint Base Andrews, MD, on 22 Feb 17.

**The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5: Applicant’s Contentions

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

FINDING: After a review of the record, the Board unanimously voted to grant the relief of the requested upgrade as discussed below.

DISCUSSION: 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 applicant’s record of service included: one Article 15; one Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment; one Letter of Reprimand; and two Records of Individual Counseling. His misconduct included controlling a vehicle while Blood Alcohol Content was equal to or greater than .08; failing to go to duty on time (2x); with intent to deceive, making false official statement to Senior Non Commissioned Officer; dereliction of duty; failing to complete Vol. 3 of Career Development Course; and making a statement regarding getting out of deployment.

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 received a General discharge for Misconduct. The applicant contends the discharge was improper because his supervisors did not like him. Applicant also contends that his word was never valued when providing a rebuttal or asking for protection from his supervisors. After review of the record, the Board found no evidence of inequity. However, the DRB determined that there was evidence of impropriety, in that an error of fact, law, procedure or discretion existed associated with the discharge at the time of issuance; and that the rights of the applicant were prejudiced. Specifically, the applicant was not afforded full and due consideration for a diagnosed and related medical condition for which he was not medically cleared at the time of discharge. Therefore, although the conduct that led to the discharge was egregious, the Board concluded that the discharge was improper for the reasons which were the basis for this case and warrants an upgrade.

A discharge is upgraded only if it is established that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge. After a thorough review of the record and advice from the mental health specialist, the Board found indication that mental health issues had an impact on the applicant's misconduct or discharge. Additionally, the Board found sufficient evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization.

CONCLUSION:   The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was inconsistent with the	

procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and finds the applicant was not provided full administrative due process.

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 under the provisions of 10 USC §1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief