AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)

TYPE	PERSONAL APPEARANCE

X	RECORD REVIEW

COUNSEL

YES	No

X

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

VOTE OF THE BOARD

(b) (6)

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

X X X
X

ISSUES

A93.23 A94.53

INDEX NUMBER

A67.30

X
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

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

18 Oct 2016

FD-2015-00460

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)

INDORSEMENT		DATE:   10/18/2016	
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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00460	

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 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 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 two Letters of Reprimand. His misconduct included dereliction in the performance of duties, being detained for shoplifting, and two counts of a theft scheme.

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. A discharge is upgraded only if it is established that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.

The applicant was discharged with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions service characterization for Misconduct (Serious or Recurring Misconduct Punishable By Military Or Civilian Authorities). The applicant received 2 letters of reprimand: one for being detained for shoplifting (the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of theft scheme) and the second for dereliction in the performance of duties.

The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because he was informed of the pending discharge 1 year after his arrest for civilian shoplifting. He further contends the discharge was improper because he was not afforded a discharge board, but that due to fear of greater punishment he also chose not to fight the discharge or drag out the process. He maintains the Air Force should have treated his underlying mental health issue in lieu of discharging him.

The Board concluded the applicant’s misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate with no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. Further, at the time of discharge, the applicant had provided an Unconditional Waiver to a Discharge Board.	

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 his 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.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief