AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE
2017-07-11	CASE NUMBER FD-2016- 00303	
TYPE
General	X	PERSONAL APPEARANCE		NON-PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
STRAUB, HEATHER R 1019 PACIFIC AVE STE 920
TACOMA, WA 98402	
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
# - Reentry Code	(b) (6)

SIGNATURE OF BOARD PRESIDENT	DATE: 9/6/2017	
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-2016-00303	

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

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 applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Joint Base Andrews, MD, on 11 Jul 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 two Article 15. His misconduct included failing to obey a lawful order prohibiting the use and possession of salvia and spice by wrongfully using an herbal product commonly known as spice; and providing alcoholic beverages to individuals under the age of 21.

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 – Drug Abuse. The applicant contends that the discharge was inequitable because he did not receive legal counsel when requested during an interview with the Office of Special Investigation (OSI), and later received ineffective assistance form counsel when they finally communicated. The applicant believes that he was denied the opportunity for a court-martial, board of inquiry, or a chance at a more complete response to the Article 15 for drug abuse by the Area Defense Counsel (ADC). The applicant contends that the discharge was improper because he was not provided an opportunity to respond to accusations made against him; and that the evidence used to support the Article 15 was insufficient and did not constitute drug abuse. The Board took note of the amount of time the applicant had to communicate with the ADC and found that it was legally sufficient and allowed for a submitted response by the applicant. This was also evidenced by the “Request for Retention or Honorable Characterization” submitted by the ADC to the Commander as a part of the discharge package. The Board majority concluded that the credible testimony of the member, supported by the witness recantation statements submitted to both the Commander and this panel, that he did not use Spice during the alleged inclusive dates specifically identified on the discharge notification. Therefore the Board majority found that the discharge was improper and warrants an upgrade of the discharge characterization, a change to the narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment code.	

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 no indication that any mental health issues had an impact on the applicant's misconduct or discharge.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was inconsistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and finds the applicant was not provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board majority concludes that the overall quality of applicant’s service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge, the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority and the reenlistment code changed to 3K under the provisions of 10 USC
§1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief