AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)
TYPE	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGAN!ZATION	ADDRESS ANl> OR ORGANIZATION  OPCOlll'ISEL
Yts	No
x

-(b) (6)
-
....

MEMBER SITTING

VOTE OF THE BOARD

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x	
	x	
	x	
	x	
	x	

....
-

ISSUES	A03.08	INDEX ISUMBER	A86.00	EXHIBITSSUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
1	ORDER APPOrNTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL 'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITION AL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

19 Aug 2016	FD-2015-00623
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND nm BOARD'SDECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ONnm ATIAOIED AIR FORCEDISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONAl.ll.

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: 812312016
TO:	FROM:

SAFIMRBR

SECR£TA.RY OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCI L AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	ISJS COMMAND DR. EE WING, JRD n.ooR
RANDOLPH AFB,TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MO 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00623	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

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.

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

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.

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 An Entry Level Separation for a Mental Health Disorder -Adjustment Disorder. 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 govenunental 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 contends that she was discharged for having a mental health disorder. However, she feels that the environment that she was placed in directly contributed to her mental health issues. She claims that she would like an upgrade in order to enlist in another branch of service. The DRB opined that, considering the applicant's mental state at the time of discharge, the administrative actions taken were appropriate. The Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of impropriety to grant the requested relief.

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 the applicant's mental health issues were appropriately diagnosed and recorded. Additionally, the DRB found no evidence to justify a change of reason and authority for the discharge, or change to the reenlistment code.

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 found no evidence to justify a change to the reason and authority for the discharge or the reenlistment code.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief