AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)
TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OFCOUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORCANIZATION OFCOUNSEL
YES	No
x

-(b) (6)
....

MEMBER SITTING

VOTE OF 1HE BOARD

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
	x	
	
x	
	
x	
	x x	

....

....

I-

ISSUES	A92.21	INDEX NUMB.ER	A67.10	EXHIBITS SUBMIITED TO THE BOARD
1 ORDER APPOINTfNG 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

!{EARING DATE	CASE NUMB&R

22 Jun 2016	FD-2015-00373
APPUCANT'S ISSUE AND TIIE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON nlEATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE llE\IJEW 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)

;;>			INDORSEMENT	DATE:
TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY or THE AIR FORCE PERSON= AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

550 C STREET WEST,SUITE 40	JSlS COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD io762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00373	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) 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 mntal health disorders.

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

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 -Minor Disciplinary Infractions. 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 Board completed 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 Article 15 for being found drunk on duty.

The applicant states that he would like to clear his name from having an Under Honorable Conditions General discharge.  He also states that an Honorable discharge will give him more career options.  He claims that since being discharged he has been actively working on his sobriety with the Veterans Administration and is currently enrolled with the New Hampshire Technical Institute.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant is doing well and making positive changes in his life.  However, the Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.  The Board concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate based on the misconduct.

A discharge is upgraded only if it is established that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge. The Board noted the applicant's diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder and found there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant's mental health issues establish an inequity or impropriety.

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