AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, J!'IRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)
TYPE	x	I	PERSONAL  APPEARAN CE	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANl:U.TION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGAN'IZATION OFCOUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OFTHE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	OEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	X#
-
X#
-
X#
-
X#
-
X#
ISSUES	A94.54	INDEX NUMDl!R	A03.08	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
I ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER 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 HEARJNO

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

25 Aug 2016	FD-2016-00168
APPLICANT'S  ISSUE AND 11iEBOARD"S l>EClSIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ONTilE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISmARGI! RJMEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONAL£

Case heard in Washington, D.C.
Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR. X -Narrative Reason
# - RE Code

(b) (6)

,,..,	. -

INDORSEMENT	DATE:  813112b1t
TO:	FROM:
SAFIMRBR	S"ECRETARV OFTHE AJR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
15.15 C'OIAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB, TX78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATI ONALE	CASF. NUMBER

FD-2016-00168	

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

Pursuant to 10 USC l 553 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 brai n injury and/or special train ing on mental health disorders.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (ORB), without counsel, at Joint Base Andrews, MD, on August 25, 2016.

No additional exhibits were submitted 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 applicant received an Entry Level Separation discharge for Adjustmen t Disorder. 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 his discharge was inequitable because i t was based on the findings from a 15 minute appointment wi th the base psychologist. He also claims that no test were given to j udge his mental state at that time. The applicant submits that he believes he deserves a second chance despite his mental disorder so that he may serve his country in another branch of military.

After a thorough review of the record and advice from the mental health specialist, the Board found the applicant to have a cond ition of "adjustment disorder." Also, the Board found that the medical records indicate that the appli cant was not able to adequately adjust to the stressful environment of Basic Military Training, in which his condition was so severe that it prevented continued training.  The Mental Health Evaluation stated that the applicant had a strong desire to separate from the Air Force at that time.
Additionally, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade to change of reason and authority for the discharge or change to the reenlistment code.

The applicant served less than 180 days and, therefore, his service does not qualify for characterization as honorable. His uncharacterized service is not considered derogatory. A discharge is upgraded or changed only if it can be established that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was wi thi n the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.	

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board found no evidence to justify characterizing the applicant's service or to change the reason and authority for the discharge.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief