AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, fiRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b)(6)	HEARING DATE
2017-02-07	CASE NUMBER
FD-2015-
00058	
TYPE	x	PERSONAL APPEARANCE		NON-PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	
COUNSEL		K-\!l!E OF COUl\SEL AND OR ORC..\J<"IZATIO!'	ADDRESSAND OR ORCANIZATIO!' OFCOUl\SEL	
Yes	No				
					
MEMBER SITTING

(b)(6)		VOTE OF THE BOARD	
		HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
		X#*					
		X#*					
		X#*					
		X#*					
		X#*					
							
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	
			ADDITTONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF  PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING	
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARDS DECTSIONALRATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ONTllE AITACllED AIRFORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	
Case heard in Washington , D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

#Nall'ative Reason to "Secretarial Authority"
*RE Code to "3K"
(b)(6)

SJCNAllrRE OFBOARD PRESIDENT	DATE:2114/2017	
TO:
SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB,TX 78150-4742	FROM:
SECRETARY OFlHEAIR FORCE PERSONl\""EL C01"JNCJL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BO,'\RD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE \\'lNC, 3RD FLOOR
.-\NDREWS AFB,MD ?0762-7001	
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00058	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization to Honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

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 (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury and/or special training on mental health disorders.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Joint Base Andrews, MD, on February 7, 2017.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5: Additional Documents

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

FINDING:  After a review of the record and testimony from the applicant, 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 two Article 15s and one vacation of suspended nonjudicial punishment. His misconduct included: leaving a place of duty without authority; violating Air Force Directives by drinking within eight hours of reporting to duty; making false statements with intent to deceive to a Senior Airman and a non-commissioned officer; being drunk on duty (2x).

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 inequitable because it was too harsh.  He claims that he was an outstanding performer who after being deployed and suffering with PTSD like symptoms, made bad decisions.  The Board considered the applicant’s military record, specifically information on combat-related experiences while deployed, the applicant’s testimony, and documentation from the Department of Veterans Affair on his disability regarding PTSD. Taken together, there was sufficient evidence for the board to find that the applicant suffered from PTSD as a result of his deployment and that the PTSD had a nexus to the type and timeframe of his acts of misconduct.  The Board noted that the applicant was a stellar performer up until the time his misconduct started and considered the applicant’s outstanding post-service conduct as a basis to compare and understand his conduct before and after his deployment and the circumstances leading to the discharge.  Further the Board noted the applicant’s misconduct involved abuse of alcohol; the applicant’s testimony coupled with his treatment record suggested that the applicant was self-medicating for mental health issues that he may not have acknowledged or completely understood at that time.

A discharge is upgraded only if it is established that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  The Board noted that the authority under which the applicant was discharged, AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, had been amended since the applicant’s separation to include special	

processing procedures for Airmen deployed in support of overseas contingency operations and that there have been other general policy changes regarding Airmen who suffer from PTSD.  After considering and weighing all evidence, the Board ultimately found the policies under which the applicant was discharged differ in material respects than those that were in effect when the applicant was discharged, that the current policies and procedures for Airmen who suffer from combat-related PTSD provide a substantial enhancement of the due process afforded to a respondent, and that there is substantial doubt that, if the applicant had been discharged under the procedures that exist today, the applicant would have received the same type of discharge.  Consequently, the Board found sufficient evidence of inequity as defined in the governing instructions to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization, change of reason and authority for the discharge, and change to the reenlistment code.

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.

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, the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority, and the reenlistment code changed to 3K under the provisions of 10 USC
§1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief