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 OFCOUNSEL AND OR ORCANl:ZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORCANll.ATION 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	A62.00	EXHIBITS SUBMIITED 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
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMrITED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANC E
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

KEARINC DATE	CASE NUMBER

22 Sep 2016	FD-2015-00641
APPUCANT"S ISSUE AND 1l!EBOARD'SDECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON 1l!EATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHAROE 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: 9/23f.2016 \,_)
TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY OF nu;AJR FORCE PERSONN"EL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST,SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR,EE WlNC, JRJ> FLOOR
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-2015-00641	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for characterization of her uncharacterized entry level separation as 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 I 0 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 applicant received an Entry Level Separation discharge for Fraudulent Enlistment. 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 contends that her discharge was improper because she disclosed all medical records to include that she did not have anxiety prior to joining the Air Force.  She claims that an undiscovered anomaly is responsible for the symptoms leading to her discharge and the diagnosis of anxiety was incorrect.  After a thorough review of the record, the Board found evidence in a statement by the applicant that she had preexisting symptoms of anxiety prior to enlisting in the Air Force and did not disclose this information because she did not think anxiety would affect her during basic military training.  It was also found she  stated that her anxiety was so severe that she could not continue to serve in the Air Force.  The DRB concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

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 no indication that any mental health issues had an impact on the applicant's misconduct or on her discharge. Additionally, the Board found no 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 , 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 characterizing the applicant's service or to change the reason and authority for the discharge.

Attaclunent: Examiner's Brief