AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST, MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE 2017-08-22	CASE NUMBER FD-2016- 00393	
TYPE
General	X	PERSONAL APPEARANCE		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.

Advise applicant of the decision of the DRB and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

(b) (6)

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00393	

GENERAL: The applicant was discharged on 19 Oct 04 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Joint Base Andrews, MD, on 22 Aug 17. No witnesses were present to testify on the applicant’s behalf and no additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing.

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 his discharge characterization to Honorable.

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.  If applicable, the board can also change the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility code. 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: two Letters of Reprimand and three Letters of Counseling. His misconduct included civilian charges of DUI, failure to stay in lane, and failure to report an accident (found guilty of lane violation only), failure to go to duty on time (2x), operating a motor vehicle in a reckless manner, and apprehension and incarceration by civilian authorities for DUI.

The applicant contended the discharge was improper because his line of duty determination and Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) took too long to be considered prompt and accurate in accordance with AFI 36- 2910, delaying a possible medical discharge.  He also contended the discharge was inequitable because he was physically unable to perform assigned tasks and developed mental issues as a result of the delayed MEB findings.  The applicant also noted that since leaving the service, he completed a college degree, has a successful career in the finance industry, and is active in his local community.  He argued this warranted an upgrade to his discharge characterization on the basis of clemency.

The board noted his line of duty determination was never in doubt and not a significant factor in this case since his injury occurred during training, while he was on active duty. The MEB process for the applicant took a significant amount of time, but was not necessarily out of the norm.  The board reviewed evidence that supported his contention he was physically unable to perform many of his assigned tasks, but did not determine a causal relationship between this and his mental health issues.  The DRB was pleased to see the applicant has been successful since leaving the Air Force. However, the board cannot upgrade discharges on the basis of clemency.	

The board reviewed the applicant’s dual action case that was adjudicated by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council in 2004.  The council directed an administrative discharge instead of a medical discharge since it found no “direct causal or mitigating relationship between either the member’s medical condition or his medications and his reckless driving and two instances of driving under the influence of alcohol.” Additionally, the board reviewed the outcome from his previous discharge review in 2013 and noted that board also concluded there was no causal relationship between the applicant’s medical condition and his misconduct.

Board members noted the applicant was diagnosed with psychiatric traits not consistent with military duty, missed numerous medical appointments, and declined behavioral treatment to assist in pain management for his back injury.  Additionally, he was offered a medical separation with severance pay, but declined it in order to pursue a one hundred percent disability retirement instead.

The DRB concluded that although the applicant admitted to “self-medicating” with alcohol to deal with some of his pain and personal struggles, it did not excuse his choice to repeatedly abuse alcohol.  Moreover, by choosing to drive while under the influence of alcohol, he risked his life and the lives of others.  His actions reflected not only poorly on him, but on the Air Force as a whole.  Finally, the board did not establish a causal relationship between the applicant’s medical condition and his misconduct.

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 his request was not approved.

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 31 Aug 17.  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.

The board recommends the applicant consider exercising his right to appeal the DRB’s decision to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records by requesting clemency based on post-service activities and accomplishments.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief