AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAl\'1£ OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b)(6)	HEARING DATE
2017-01-12	CASE NUMBER
FD-2016-
00155	
TYPE	x	PERSONAL APPEARANCE		NON-PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
COUNSEL		K-\ME OF COUl\SEL AND OR ORC..\J<lZATION

(b)(6)	ADDRESS.-\1\1> OR ORC.-\1\lZATION OFCOUNSEL	
Yes	No				
x					
MEMBER SITTING	VOTE OF THE BOARD	
	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
(b)(6)					X*#	
(b)(6)					X*#	
(b)(6)					X*#	
(b)(6)					X*#	
(b)(6)					X*#	

-				
ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD	
		1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
		2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LETTER OFNOTIFICATION	
		4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL Fil.E	
			COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
			ADDITTONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF  PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING	
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND lHE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON TiiBATIACHBD AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	
Case heard in Washington, D.C.

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

*Na1rntive Reason
#RE Code
(b)(6)

SIC!'.-\llrRE OFBO.\RD PRESIDENT	DATE: 2/112017	
TO:
SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB,TX 78150-4742	FROM:
SECRETARY OFTIIE AIR FORCE PERS01'1'  L COUNCll. AIR FORCE DISCH.o\RCE REVIEW BOARD
!!J' S COMMAND DR, EE \\'lNC,3RD FLOOR
.-\!\"DREWS AFB,MD ?076?-7001	
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00155	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals to change the reason and authority for the discharge and to change the reenlistment code.

Pursuant to 10 USC §1553 this board included a member who is a clinical psychologist or psychiati·ist, or a physician with ti·aining on mental health issues connected with post ti·aumatic sti·ess disorder or U-aumatic brain injmy and/or special ti·aining on mental health disorders.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Joint Base Andrews, MD, on Januaiy 12, 2017.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the dischai·ge.

FINDING : The Boai·d finds insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would waiTant a change to the applicant's discharge.

DISCUSSION: The Air Force Dischai·ge Review Boai·d, under itsresponsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the characterization of service and the reason for dischai·ge if such change is waiTanted . In reviewing dischai·ges, the Board presumes regulai·ity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the applicant. The applicant's record of service included one Record of Individual Counseling for self-eliminating from Pai·ai·escue/Combat Control Indocti·ination Course.

The Boai·d completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the dischai·ge and the dischai·ge process to detennine if the discharge met the pe1tinent standards of equity and propriety. The applicant received an Honorable discharge for Unsatisfacto1y Peifonnance. The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable and improper because he felt that the Air Force's use of the Air Force Instii.1ction sepai·ation pai·agraph was incorrect. He claims that his overall peifonnance was not unsatisfacto1y, but more on the lines of failure to progress in militaiy ti·aining. He also feels that it is an inequity to be given a reenlistinent code that does not allow a member to reenlist in the military. He feels that he should be able to reenlist into another branch of se1vice.

After a review of the record and testimony from the applicant and his counsel, the Boai·d found that there was no evidence of impropriety or inequity to waiTant a change to the reason and authority for the discharge or to change the reenlistment code. The applicant signed on his own free will, the statement on the Air Force IMT Fonn 174, "I voluntarily self-eliminate (SIE) from ti·aining at the 342 TRS, and request removal from the CCT/SOWT/PJ U-aining pipeline on Day of Training (DOT) 13. I understand that this decision may lead to my involuntaiy administrative dischai·ge from the Air Force and I make this decision of my own free will and without coercion." The applicant also signed on his own free will a memorandum acknowledging that self­ elimination may lead to an adminish'ative discharge from the Air Force and that he may be ineligible to re­ enlist in any branch of the aimed se1vices, depending on the re-enlistment code granted to him by the dischai·ge authority. He also waived his options to be considered for reclassification. As such, the Board denies the requested actions.

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 Boai·d found no indication that any mental health issues had an impact on the applicant's misconduct or on his dischai·ge.	

Additionally, the Board found no evidence to justify a change of reason and authority for the discharge or change to the reenlistment code.

This is not a case of inequity or impropriety, but may be a case of injustice. The Board highly recollllllends that if the applicant can provide additional infonnation to substantiate his contentions, he should consider exercising his right to submit his case to the Air Force Board of Co1Tection of Milita1y Records via DD Fo1m 149, Application for CoITection of Militaiy Record. Ifthe applicant chooses to exercise this right, he should provide evidence, as well as proof of any exemplaiy post-service accomplishments or contributions to the community.

CONCLUSION: The Dischai·ge Review Board concludes that  the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirementsof the dischai·ge regulation, was within the discretion of the dischai·ge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

fu view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and dete1mines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief