AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, fiRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b)(6)	HEARING DATE
2017-03-02	CASE NUMBER
FD-2016-
00204	
TYPE	x	PERSONAL APPEARANCE		NON-PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
COUNSEL	K-\!l!E OF COUl\SEL AND OR ORG..\J<"IZATIO!'	ADDRESS Al\"D OR ORG..\l\lZATIO!' OFCOUl\SEL	
Yes	No			
				
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	INDL'< NUMBER	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD	
		1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
		2	APPUCATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION	
		4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
			COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
			ADDillONAL EXHIBITS  SUBMITTED AT TIME OF   PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING	
APPLICANTS ISSUE AND THE BOARD SDECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON TllE AITACHED 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.

*Narrative Reason "Secretarial Authority"

(b)(6)

SIGNATURE OFBOARD PRESIDENT	DATE:4/1212017	
TO:
SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH  AFB,TX 78150-4742	FROM:
SECRETARY OF 1HE AIR FORCE PERSONl\""EL C01"JNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE RE\'ILW BO'\RD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE W"INC, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS '\FB,  ID ?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-2016-00204	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization to Honorable and to change the reason and authority for 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 (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury and/or special training on mental health disorders.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Joint Base Andrews, MD, on March 2, 2017.

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: After a review of the record, the Board majority voted to grant the relief of the requested upgrade as discussed below.

DISCUSSION: 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 applicant’s record of service included a conviction by Summary Court-Martial. His misconduct included wrongfully using his government travel charge card (GTC) for unauthorized purchases (2x) and willfully failing to refrain from using his GTC for unauthorized purchases.

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 - Commission of Serious Offense. The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He claims that he was an outstanding performer who after being deployed and suffering with PTSD like symptoms, made bad decisions. The Board considered the applicant’s military record, specifically information on combat-related experiences while deployed, the applicant’s testimony, and documentation from the Department of Veterans Affair on his disability regarding PTSD. Taken together, there was sufficient evidence for the DRB to find that the applicant suffered from PTSD as a result of his deployment. The PTSD was found to have a nexus to the type and timeframe of his acts of misconduct. The Board noted that the applicant was a stellar performer up until the time his misconduct started and considered the applicant’s outstanding post-service conduct as a basis to compare and understand his conduct before and after his deployment and the circumstances leading to the discharge. Further the Board noted the applicant’s misconduct involved misuse of his Government Travel Card (GTC); the Board determined that the applicant was suffering from compulsive spending disorder that he may not have acknowledged or completely understood at that time.

A discharge is upgraded only if it is established that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge. The Board noted that the authority under which the applicant was discharged, AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, has been amended since the applicant’s separation to include special processing procedures for Airmen deployed in support of overseas contingency operations and that there have been other general policy changes regarding Airmen who suffer from PTSD. After considering and weighing all evidence, the Board ultimately found the policies under which the applicant was discharged differ in	

material respects than those that were in effect when the applicant was discharged. The current policies and procedures for Airmen who suffer from combat-related PTSD provide a substantial enhancement of the due process afforded to a respondent, and that there is substantial doubt that, if the applicant had been discharged under the procedures that exist today, the applicant would have received the same type of discharge. Consequently, the DRB found sufficient evidence of inequity as defined in the governing instructions to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization and change of reason and authority for the discharge.

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

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the overall quality of applicant’s service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority under the provisions of 10 USC §1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief