AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FffiST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b)(6)	HEARING DATE
2016-11-09	CASE NUMBER FD-2016- 00167	
TYPE			x	NON-PERSONAL APPEARANCE - . .-	
'. COUN:SEL ·
Yes	No	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORCANlt/\TION	ADDRESS AND OR ORCANIt/\TION OF COUNSEL	

MEMBER SITTING	VOTE OF THE BOARD :	
	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DE)N	
(b) (6)							X*	
							X*	
							X*	
							X*	
							X*	
								
ISSU£S	INDEX Ntll18£R	· . ... ·· ...... EXHIBITS sW\MriTED"J'O-THElJ·oru·-:-:..-::_..:..  ·:·· ···-
.	.	,., .	.  . ··.·-	. .	.	·,	
		J	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 SUBMITTEDATTl:MEOF PERSONAL
APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEA.RlNG	
Al'PLICAN'T'S ISSUll AND lliEBOARD'S DECISIONAL AATIONALll A.RB DISCUSSl!D ON THBATTACHED AIR FO"RCI! DISCl!AR.GI! REVIE)V BOARD DECISIONAL R.A11QNAU!.	
Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant ofthe decision of the Board, the right to apersonal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

*RE Code
(b) (6)

SIONATUR.E OF OOARD PIUlSIDENT	1.1/\T.t::TJ./1(>/J.01(>	
TO:
SAF/MRBR
SSO C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781504742	FROM:
SECRETARY OFTHEAIR FORCE 1'£RSONNeL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISOfARC£ UVl!W JOARD 1535COllMAND DR, EE \llTNC,JRD Ft.OOR
ANDR.EWS AFB, MD la76MOOI	

·

AFHQ FOR 0-2077, JAN OQ	.(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00167	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization tq Honorable 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 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 impropri.ety that would warrant a change to the applicant's discharge.

DISCUSSION : The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under it.s responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the characterization of seryice and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  Inreviewing 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 determine if the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct -Minor Disciplinary Infractions.  The applicant submitted no issues regarding the equity or propriety of his discharge.  The applicant claims that he was a victim of malpractice inhis office.  He also states that he was new and did not get a chance to acclimate without being scrutinized unfairly.  He believes that he deserves a second .chance despite his misconduct so that he may enlist and serve his country in the United States Navy.  Upon review of the record, the Board was unable to find any documentation.regarding the discharge.  The Board relies on the presumption of regularity and finds the characterization and the reenlistment code were appropriate.

A dischge is upgraded only if it is established that an ineguity 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 or 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 equitab.le basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief