AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST i'UDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b)(6)
TYPE GEN	x	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS ANO OR 0RGANl7.ATION OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x

(b)(6)

VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

x x x
x
x

ISSUES	A94.05	lt.'DEX NUMBER	A67.30	EXHIBITS SUBMJTIED TO THE BOARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FlLE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHlB.!TS SUBMITTED ATTIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANC E
TAPE RECORDJNG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARlNG

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBE R

14 Jul 2016	FD-2015-00340
Al'PUCAITT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD·s DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISOiARGE 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.

(b)(6)

INDORSEMENT	.-

DATE:  81912016

TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY Of THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR,ee WING, JRO FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB.MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00340	

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

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

Pursuant to I0 USC 1553 this board included a member who is a cl inical 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 (ORB), without counsel, at Joint Base Andrews, MD, on July 14, 2016.

No additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing.

FINDING: The Board finds insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant 's discharge.

DISCUSSION: The  applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct -- Commission of Serious Offense. The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under its responsi bili ty 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. ln 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 completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the discharge met the perti nent standards of equity and propriety. The applicant's record of service included a Special Court Martial for one specification of assault on a noncommissioned officer (NCO). The applicant placed lighter fluid in the NCO's water bottle and caused that NCO to pour a harmful substance in his mouth.

The applicant claims that she was being harassed by the NCO that she assaulted, while deployed at Camp Buehring, Ku wait.  She also stated that she is regretful for her actions and did not mean to harm anyone. After a review of the records and testimony from the applicant, the Board found insufficient evidence to support her claim. The DRB opined that the egregious actions of the applicant was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The Board concluded that the applicant's willful misconduct outweighed the positive contributions she made in her Air Force career.  A change to the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be unwarranted.

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 no indication that any mental health issues had an impact on the applicant's misconduct or on her discharge. Additionally , the Board found no 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, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that 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