AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST, MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE
2017-08-30	CASE NUMBER
FD-2016-00190	
TYPE
General		PERSONAL APPEARANCE	X	NON-PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND/OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND/OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL	
Yes	No			
	
X			

BOARD MEMBERS	VOTE OF THE BOARD	
	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
(b) (6)					X*#	
(b) (6)					X*#	
(b) (6)					X*#	
(b) (6)	X*				#	
(b) (6)					X*#	
(b) (6)						
ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD	
		1	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(S) AND THE BOARD’S DELIBERATIONS ARE SUMMARIZED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	
Case heard at JB Andrews, MD.

* - Narrative Reason
# - Reenlistment Eligibility Code

Advise applicant of the decision of the DRB, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.
(b) (6)	

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, AUG 17	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00190	

GENERAL: The applicant was discharged on 1 Mar 13 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable.  The board was conducted on 30 Aug 17.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), but declined and requested the board be completed based on a records only review. The applicant was not represented by counsel.

Pursuant to 10 USC §1553, the 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 (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI), and/or training on mental health disorders.

The attached examiner’s brief (provided to applicant only), extracted from available service records, contains pertinent data regarding the circumstances and character of the applicant’s military service.

FINDING:  The DRB voted 4 to 1 to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable.

DISCUSSION:  The DRB, 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 changes are warranted.  If applicable, the board can also change the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility code. 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 determine if the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.

The applicant’s record of service included two Letters of Reprimand (LORs). His misconduct included driving while intoxicated and drunk and disorderly behavior.

The applicant made no contentions that the discharge was inequitable or improper. He requested the upgrade in an effort to obtain more post service benefits

The dissenting member of the board expressed concern about the legal opinion in the discharge package that found it to be legally insufficient. The opinion argued that two offenses in a 15-month period did not constitute a pattern of misconduct.  It also questioned whether the commander had provided enough pre- processing rehabilitation prior to discharge.  In support of this position, the attorney noted the applicant had only received two LORs.  The majority of the board, however, pointed out the service record revealed the LORs were both for alcohol-related incidents, the applicant lied during ADAPT, and failed to complete ADAPT (both of which could have resulted in additional administrative action against him). Because all of this misconduct was related to alcohol abuse, the presence of a “pattern,” formally documented in the two LORs, could be more clearly seen.  There was also evidence in the file indicating the applicant’s leadership counseled him about the ADAPT incidents, albeit not in writing. Finally, the applicant’s command denied him a good conduct medal for a 3-year period prior to receiving his first alcohol-related LOR, although the basis for that decision was not entirely clear.  Under the unique circumstances of this case, the majority of the board concluded they did not agree with the legal opinion.

After a thorough review of the service record and inputs from the board’s psychiatrist, the DRB found no	

conclusive indication that any mental health issues had a direct impact on the applicant's misconduct or discharge.

CONCLUSION: The board found insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant’s discharge. Therefore, the discharge received by the applicant was deemed to be appropriate and his request was not approved.

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 15 Sep 17.  If desired, the applicant can request a list of the board members and their votes by writing to: SAF/MRBR (CITU), 550-C Street West, Suite 41, Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4743.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief