AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
HEARING DATE
2016-12-07

CASE NUMBER FD-2016- 00081

TYPE

COUNSEL
Yes	No

x	PERSONAL APPEARANCE

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

NON.;PERSONAL APPEARANCE

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES
A94.55

INDEX NUMBER
A67.30

l	ORDER APPOINTING 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 SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND UiEBOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISC:USSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR F()RE .DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL AATiONALE.

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00081	

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

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 applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference between Joint Base Andrews, MD and Robins AFB, GA on 7 December 2016.

No additional exhibits were submitted and no witnesses were present at the hearing.

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 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 he was wronged by his commander and inappropriately discharged. The record indicates the applicant received a referral Enlisted Performance Report, which referenced four Letters of Reprimand and one Letter of Counseling for failure to meet standards/comply with lawful orders. Upon review of the record, the Board was unable to find any documentation regarding the discharge. Therefore the Board relies on the presumption of regularity and finds the characterization appropriate. The Board did note that the applicant was discharged for commission of a serious offense, which appears to be his arrest for driving under the influence. Although the applicant provided testimony to try and mitigate the seriousness of his arrest, the Board noted this incident occurred subsequent to the applicant’s receipt of the referral EPR placing him on notice that his conduct was not meeting standards. The applicant should be advised that since he has exhausted his administrative review before the DRB, he may apply to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, which has the authority to review his discharge under a broader standard than the DRB.

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