AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE
2017-04-12	CASE NUMBER FD-2016- 00308	
TYPE		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: 5/15/2017	
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-2016-00308	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for a change to the Narrative Reason.

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: After a review of the record, the Board unanimously 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. Since the applicant’s request for relief is based in part on matters relating to post-traumatic stress disorder, the Board considered his case based on the liberal consideration standard required by the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. The applicant’s record of service included declining services with the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment (ADAPT) Program.

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 an Honorable discharge for Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure. The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident and that she never had an issue with alcohol or drugs. The applicant contends that after completing the 30 intensive outpatient rehabilitation program, there was a misunderstanding of her refusal to participate in the recommended six month follow-up program. The applicant believes that the narrative reason is preventing employment within law enforcement, and that the accomplishments over her 11 year career should have been taken into account when deciding to punish. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by her performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments. After reviewing the entire record, the Board determined that the discharge was improper due to an error of procedure. The DRB opined that the applicant declined a recommendation for the 6 month follow-up program, and not a requirement. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant’s service was appropriate, and that a change to the narrative reason for discharge is warranted.

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 that mental health issues had an impact on the applicant's misconduct or discharge. Additionally, the Board found sufficient evidence to justify a change of reason and authority for the 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 concludes that the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority under the provisions of 10 USC §1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief