AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE
2017-03-16	CASE NUMBER FD-2016- 00300	
TYPE
General		PERSONAL APPEARANCE	X	NON-PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL	
Yes	No			
	X			
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#					
(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 AND THE BOARD’S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.	
Case heard in Washington, D.C.

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

# - Narrative Reason
(b) (6)

SIGNATURE OF BOARD PRESIDENT	DATE: 5/4/2017	
TO:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	FROM:
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001	
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00300	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization to Honorable and to change the narrative reason and authority for the discharge.

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 that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the record and evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant’s reason and authority for discharge inequitable.

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: one Article 15; two Letters of Reprimand; four Letters of Counseling; and one Record of Individual Counseling. Her misconduct included failing to obey a lawful order; being derelict in duties, entering incorrect lab results in patient files; failing to performs job duties (3x); being derelict in performance duties, lost hospital badge (2x); failing Physical Training test (2x); and being derelict in duties, failing to pay attention to detail.

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 Infractions. The applicant contends the discharge was improper because the infractions were a direct result of a documented medical condition (Sjogren’s Syndrome), which was aggravated by her pregnancy. The applicant further contends that the discharge was inequitable because there was an approved voluntary separation for pregnancy that her supervisor withdrew without providing an explanation. Though the Board determined that there was no evidence of impropriety, the Board unanimously opined that there was evidence of inequity. The DRB opined that there was a medical nexus between the diagnoses of Sjorgen’s Syndrome and the documented misconduct. The DRB also found, that the discharge was inequitable because there was no evidence of documented misconduct between the date of the approved voluntary separation and the date of the withdrawal of that separation. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant’s service and the narrative reason for the discharge were inappropriate and warrant an upgrade.

A discharge is upgraded only if it is established that an inequity 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 sufficient evidence of inequity to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization, 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