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- 00314	
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 for Separation (Secretarial Authority)

(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-2016-00314	

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

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. Due to evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder found in the applicant’s medical record, 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: one Article 15 and one Letter of Counseling. His misconduct included failing to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty; wrongfully using cannabinoids; assaulting a traffic officer and a customs/border patrol officer; failing to return to place of duty after attending treatment; failing to report to treatment facility as scheduled.

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 the discharge was inequitable because a drug test was never conducted and a specific drug was never identified. The applicant also contends that a series of mental health issues and PTSD contributed to the misconduct. The Board considered the mental health of the applicant and that a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was considered. However, the Board determined the applicant was pending separation under provisions that authorize a characterization of service Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC). Due to the UOTHC consideration, the Board is restricted by DoDI. 1332 38 and AFI 41-20 4.5.1.2 from considering the MEB conditions as a factor. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety. However, the Board determined that there was enough evidence of an inequity, as the applicant experienced family and personal problems that effected his capacity to serve. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be inappropriate, and an upgrade 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 any mental health issues had an impact on the applicant's misconduct or discharge. Additionally, the Board found sufficient evidence 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