AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE Ml:M BER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE IN ITIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)
TYPE	I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW
CQllNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGA.'llZATION	ADDRESSANO OR ORGANIZATTON OF COUl\SEL
YES	No
x

(b) (6)

MEMBER SITTING

VOTE OFTHE BOARD

ISSUES

AO I.13

INDEX N\JM BER

'
A62.00

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
	*+	x	
	
*+	x	
	*+	x	
	*+	x	
	*+	x	

ElGllBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
1 ORDER A PP0£NTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTff lCATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEA RANCE HEARING

HEARING  DATE	CASE NU fBER

13 Jul 2016	FD-2016-00094
APPLICANT'SISSUE AND nlEll()ARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONALE AR.£ DISCUSSED ON nm ATTACl!EO MR FORCE DISCliARGe ReVl£W 90ARD DECISION.\l. RATIQNALE.

Case heard in Washington , D.C.

Advise appl icant 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 .

* CHANGE RE CODE
+ CHANGE REASON  AND AUTHORJTY  TO SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY	,.. 	
(b) (6)

:;:>

INDORSEMENT	DATE:  811/201Q	I

TO:	t-•KOM:

SAF/MR.BR

SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE OISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	15.lS COMMAND DR,EE WING,3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	AJ(DREWSAFB.MD  ?0762·7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00094	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for an 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.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

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.

FINDING: The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of the discharge characterization. However, the Board finds that based upon the record and evidence provided by applicant, a change to the reason and authority for discharge and re-enlistment code are warranted.

DISCUSSION: The applicant received an Entry Level Separation discharge for fraudulent entry into military service. 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 he was erroneously removed from basic training .  He claims that the discharge was improper and the medical condition for which he was discharged did not and does not exist.  After review of the records and consideration of the review conducted by the mental health specialist, the DRB determined the record did not support discharge for fraudulent entry, but possibly erroneous entry.  The Board opined that the administrative actions taken against the applicant were based on an unsubstantiated diagnosis of a mental health condition.  The Board concluded there was justification  to support the claim of impropriety.  As such, a change to the narrative reason and re-enlistment code are warranted.   However, since the applicant was notified of the commander 's intent to discharge him before the applicant had served 180 days, his service is appropriately uncharacterized  as entry level.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was inconsistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and finds the applicant was not provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority and the reenlistment code changed to 3K under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553.  However, the discharge characterization shall remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief