AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER <LAST. FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	.

BEARINGDATE
2017-01-24

CASE NUMBER FD-2015- 00441

TYPE

x	PERSONAL APPEARANCE	NON-PERSONAL APPEARANCE

NAME OFCOllNSEl..Al'll! OR ORCl\NIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANl:ZATION OFCOUNSEL

Yes	No

M;EMBER SITTING
(b)(6)	HON
x

x x

GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

x x

ISSUES

!ND£XNVMBER

1	ORDER APPOINTING  THE BOARD

2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATJON
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO TiiB BOARD
ADDmONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITI'ED AT TIME OF  PERSONAL
APPEARANCE
TAPERECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

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

{b) (6)

SIGNATURE OFBOARD PRESIDENT	DATE:3/6/2017

TO:

SAF/MRBR
SSO C STREET WEST,SUITE40 RANDOLPH AFB,TX 78150-4742

FROM:

SECRllTARY OFTBE AIR FORC.I! PERSONNEL COUNCIL
·Al1l FORCE DJSCllARGE llEVlEW BOARD 1515COhlMAXD DR, EEWING, JRD n.DOR AHDREWS AFB, MD 20762-JGtl

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

I
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00441	

GEERAL:   The (lpplicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization to Honorable.
1,	'	•

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), without counsel, at Joint Base Andrews, MD, on January 24, 2017.  A witness was present and testified on the·applicai:it's behalf.

No additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing.

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 voted to grant the requested upgrade of the applicant's discharge 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 include evidence submitted by the applicant, to rebut the presumption. The applicant's record of service included one Article 15 for failing to pay a debt. 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 Unsatisfactory Duty Performance, Failure to Progress in On-The­ Job Training, and Pattern of Misconduct (Dishonorable Failure to Pay Just Debts). The applicant contends that the discharge did not take into account the good things she did while in the Air Force. She also cited her desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits. After a thorough review of the record the board noted that although the applicant received two referral EPRs, the referral ratings were a result of commander directed reports solely for the purpose of supporting the applicant's proposed discharge. It was further noted that an initial recommendation for discharge of the applicant did not include the misconduct, but came to light while the applicant was being considered for cross training into a different career specialty. A careful reading of the referral evaluations reveals that despite the CDC failures, the applicant was considered to have performed her duties in an outstanding manner. Thus it appears the recommendation for a General characterization of service was influenced by the applicant's delinquent debts.  The DRB found that when considering the circumstance.s surrounding the debt to a phone company, which comprised the bulk of the debt, the dedsion to offer a lower character of service was overly harsh, particularly given the applicant's overall record of performance and service. As such, the Board determined it appropriate to upgrade the discharge characterization to Honorable.

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 under the provisions of 10 USC §1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief