AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST, MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE
2017-09-14	CASE NUMBER
FD-2016-00235	
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

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)

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00235	

GENERAL: The applicant was discharged on 7 Aug 07 in accordance with AFI 36-3206 with a General discharge for Unacceptable Conduct. The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge characterization to Honorable and a change to the discharge narrative reason. The board was conducted on 14 Sep 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 unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge characterization to Honorable and to change the discharge narrative reason.

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.  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 one Article 15 and three Letters of Reprimand. Her misconduct included failure to refrain from using a government travel card for unauthorized purchases (approximately 15x), being derelict in her duty to follow directions to use the Defense Travel System (DTS) in accordance with Air Force policy, being late for duty on several occasions, and being late for duty and causing a patient to wait 30 minutes beyond the scheduled appointment time.

The applicant contended the discharge was inequitable because it was not commensurate with her overall service record.  She also argued it was based on an isolated incident—her government travel card misuse. The applicant believed her commander discriminated against her and targeted her for unfair punishment. She claimed that due to the constant scrutiny she became depressed, developed issues with concentration, experienced anxiety, and had trouble sleeping. The applicant requested the upgrade in an effort to receive additional Department of Veteran Affairs benefits.

The DRB noted the applicant received three Letters of Reprimand and one Article 15 over an 8-month period.  The applicant’s discharge package revealed her government travel card misuse was not an isolated incident as she misused it approximately fifteen times. The discharge package also revealed the applicant was not completely honest when she completed her questionnaire to obtain a security clearance. The board found no conclusive evidence the applicant was discriminated against or targeted for unfair punishment.  It also determined that, through the administrative actions taken by the chain of command in this case, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior, but did not. The board understood the	

applicant’s present service characterization renders her ineligible for some Department of Veteran Affairs benefits.  However, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade

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 her request was not approved.

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 27 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