AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b)(6)
TYPE  GEN	x	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSIL	NAME OP COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER   SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b)(6)	X*+

x•+ X*+ X*+
X*+
ISSUES	A94.54	INDEX NUMBER	A67.l0	EXRlBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOA.RD
1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLlCATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER  OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO TIIE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

19 Aug 2016	FD-2015-00628
APPLICANT'SISSUE.ANDTHEBOAllD  'SD£0SIONALMTIONALEAREDISCUSSEDONTHEA       1TACJiEDAIRFORCEDISOIARGEREVIEWBOARDDF.CISIONALM     110NALE.

Case heard in Washington , D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/withou t counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

* CHANGE RE CODE
+ CHANGE RE	_::: AND AUTHORITY TO SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY
(b)(6)

/"""\•

INDORSEMENT	DATE: 81261.2016
TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

1535CO tMAND DR, £E WING, JRD l'LOOR

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-2015-00628	

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 mental health disorders.

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

FINDING: After a review of the record, the Board unanimously voted to grant the relief of the requested upgrade as discussed below.

DISCUSSION : The applicant was discharged for Misconduct -Minor Disciplinary Infractions with service characterized as Under Honorable Conditions (General). 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 and one Letter of Counseling. Her misconduct included being derelict in her duty performance and leaving for a personal appointment without consent.

The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. She claims that her misconduct was minor and she would not have been in this predicament if she was fully trained on the Be on the Lookout (BOLO) process. A discharge is upgraded only if it is established that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge. Although the Board does not condone the applicant's misconduct, after a thorough review of the record and advice from the mental health specialist, the Board found sufficient evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization, change of reason and authority for the discharge, and 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 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, the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority and the reenlistment  code changed to 3K under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief