AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE
2017-02-20	CASE NUMBER FD-2015- 00216	
TYPE UOTHC	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: 6/16/2017	
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-2015-00216	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization 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.

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 21 Feb 17.

**The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5: Applicant’s Contentions
Exhibit #: (Character reference letters)

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; two Letters of Reprimand; and two Letters of Counseling. His misconduct included failing to obey lawful orders not to drive on base; making a false official statement; driving while under the influence, engaging in behavior that could be perceived as inappropriate touching; and engaging in unprofessional behavior, inappropriate comments about a patient that were heard by that patient.

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 an Under Other Than Honorable Condition Discharge - In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial. The applicant contends the discharge was inappropriate due to an ongoing battle with alcohol abuse. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety that warrants an upgrade of the discharge. However, the Board determined there were mitigating factors that affected the applicant’s ability to serve satisfactorily.  The Board recognized that applicant’s severe alcohol dependence and abuse of alcohol made a significant contribution to the applicant’s misconduct. The Board concluded the discharge was inequitable due to the mitigating reasons stated herein, and that an upgrade is warranted.

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 that a mental health issues had a significant 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 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 a discharge Under Honorable Conditions (General) under the provisions of 10 USC §1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief