AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)
TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL   APPEARAN  CE	x	1	RECORD    REVIEW
OOUNStlL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGA1'1ZATION	ADDRESSAND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSE,L YES	No
x
VOTE OFTIIE BOARD
MEMBER     SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	X*#

X*#
X*# X*#

ISSIJt!'i	A94.54	INDEX  NUMBER	A67.10	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 RELEASETO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXH IBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

X*#

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

22 Sep 2016	FD-2016-00011
APPLICAN"J"S ISSUE A',\ll ll!E BOARD'SDECISIONAL RATIONALE AREDISCUSSED ON 'lllEATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHAllGE REVlllW BOAl.tD OF.OSIONAL 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.

*Narrative Reason
#RE Code

/ '
-(b) (6)	-

.	INDORSEMENT	TE: 9ilffl016	v	-
TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY OFn!E AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 CSTREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, lRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB.MD 21>?62-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00011	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization to Honorable, 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.

Pursuant to 10 USC 1553 this board included a mernber 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 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; two Letters of Reprimand; and one Letter of Counseling. Her misconduct included: failing to complete assigned homework (2x); failing to attend mandatory formation; without authority, absenting herself from assigned unit; and wrongfully developing a personal relationship with a faculty member/Noncommissioned  Officer.

The applicant contends the discharge was improper, inequitable and did not represent Air Force standards. She claims that receiving a letter of counseli ng and letter of reprimand less than 24 hours apart for the same deficiency with no time to rehabilitate was inequitable and lacks propriety. The applicant also states that receiving an Article 15 for unprofessional relationship was improper and inequitable because it was too harsh. She also claims that her unit violated  the Absent Without Leave AFI by not following procedures. After reviewing the entire record, the Board surmised that the applicant disregarded the orders by her leadership which led to the administrative actions taken. The applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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

Attaclunent: Examiner's Brief