AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b)(6)
TYPE    GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATIDN	ADDRESSAlD OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	No	(b)(6)	(b)(6)
x

,_

,...

,...

VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b)(6)	x
x x x x
ISSUES	A9S.OO	11\DEX NUMBER	A67.00	EXHIBITS SUBMfn"ED TO mE BOARD 	
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR R.EVTEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTlFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE DOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITIED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

REARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

27 Sep 2016	FD-2015-00643
APPLICANTS ISSU£ Al"» TllE BOARD'SDECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON 1llEA1TACl-IED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE R.EV1EW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALll.

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)

TO.u

SAF!).1RBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

l:NDORSEMENT	DATE:   917'r/!0Ui   0
FROM;	·-
SECRETARY Of THE AIR FORCE PERSONN'EL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE lll:VIEW BOARD 1535COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB,MD 207'1-?00I

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASENUMBt:R

FD-2015-00643	

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 traini ng on mental health issues connected with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI) 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 a General discharge for Misconduct - Pattern of Misconduct. The Air Force Discharge Review Board, Wlder 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 regu larity 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 Record of Individual Counseling for driving an aircraft rescue firefighting vehicle off-base without authority; and two Article l 5s for failing to refrain from consuming alcohol within an eight hour period prior to shift and wrongfully possessing and transmitting pornographic images and sexually explicit video files via government electronic mail.

The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable due to other servicemembers who viewed the same electronic mail containing sexually explicit photos were not discharge and/or were discharged but received an Honorable service characterization.   The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.  The Board concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate based  on the misconduct.

A discharge is upgraded only if it is established that an ineq uity 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 foWld the applicant's diagnosi s of PTSD had no 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.

Inview of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief