AIR FORCE DISCHARG E 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 ORGANIZATI ON	ADDRESS ANO OR ORGANIZATION or COUNSEL
y	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	EION	GEN	UOTllC	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
-
x
-
x
-
x
-
x
ISSUES	A93.23	INDEX NUMBER	A67.10	EXDTBITS SUBMTITED TO THE BOARD
1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LE'ITER OF NOTll'ICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

.HEA.RJNG DATE	CASE NUMBER

28 Sep 2016	FD-2016-00068
APPUCANrS ISSIJE AND 1llBBOARD'SDECISIONAL RATIONALE AREDISCUSSED ON THEATrACHED AIR FORCE D!SCHAAOE REVIEW BOARD D£CISJONAL RATIONAL!l.

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 AFBC.MR.

-

J
(b) (6)

v

•
INDORSEMENT	DATE:"1297l016
FROM'
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY Of TIU AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST,SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR.EE WING, 3R.D FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWSAFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NllMBER

FD-2016-00068	

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 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 a General discharge for Misconduct -Minor Disciplinary Infractions. 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, one Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment, two Letters of Reprimand, and two Letters of Counseling.

The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because felt singled out, harassed, and bullied from his leadership. Although he was in the operational Air Force, he felt leadership treated him like a trainee in boot camp. As a result of his work environment , the applicant states he developed serious post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrde 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 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 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.

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.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief