AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, fiRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	HEARING DATE
2017-06-28	CASE NUMBER
FD-2016-
00394	
TYPE		PERSONAL APPEARANCE	x	NON-PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
COUNSEL	K-\!l!E OF COUl\SEL AND OR ORC..\J<"IZATIO!'	ADDRESSAND OR ORCANIZATIO!' OFCOUl\SEL	
Yes	No			
				
MEMBER SITTING	VOTE OF THE BOARD	
	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
					X*	
					X*	
					X*	
					X*	
					X*	
						
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	
			ADDITTONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING	
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARDS DECTSIONALRATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ONTllE AITACllED AIRFORCE 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 *

SICNAllrRE OFBOARD PRESIDENT	DATE:8125/2017	
TO:
SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB,TX 78150-4742	FROM:
SECRETARY OFlHE AIR FORCE PERSONl\""EL C01"JNCJL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BO,'\RD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE \\'lNC, 3RD FLOOR
.-\NDREWSAFB, MD ?076!-7001	
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00394	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization to Honorable and to change the 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 insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant’s discharge.

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; and four Letters of Counseling. Her misconduct included releasing patient medical information; with intent to deceive, making a false official statement; failing to obtain minimum mandatory uniform items (2x); failing to return to the appointed place of duty; failing to pay phone bill; and being derelict in the performance of duties.

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 Disciplinary Infractions. The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable and improper. She submits that her discharge was inequitable due to an airman in a similar situation receiving a lesser punishment for their misconduct. The applicant also  contends  that probation and rehabilitation was disapproved by her unit commander, however the chain of command never attempted to help her. She also believes that the commander and first sergeant’s unfamiliarity of her character and capabilities was due to their recent arrival to the unit. She stated that only four months of her time in service was used in deciding her discharge characterization. The applicant contends that feeling bullied by her supervisor left her feeling powerless as she was set up to fail, culminating in a mistake that made her appear to be an unfit Airman. The applicant also believes that she was falsely diagnosed with a personality disorder. After a review of the record and submissions from the applicant, the DRB took note of her contentions and found that in regards to receiving harsher punishment for a similar infraction, the Board reviews each case on its own merit and there was no supporting documentation for this claim. The DRB also found that at the time of discharge the commander determined that the applicant’s recurring misconduct demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to serve satisfactorily, which made her ineligible for rehabilitation. The administrative actions that were taken gave the applicant ample opportunities to change her behavior. The Board found no evidence that the commander or first sergeant lacked familiarity with the applicant when determining the administrative actions for her misconduct. The DRB recognized that the applicant had served three years before the discharge was initiated, but concluded that her misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of her time in the Air Force. The Board found that there was insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s claim of bullying or maltreatment from her supervisor.	

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 at the time of diagnosis, the applicant was appropriately identified with having borderline personality disorder. The DRB also found no indication that any mental health issues had an impact on the applicant's misconduct or discharge. Additionally, the Board determined that at the time discharge there was no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization or 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, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief