AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST, MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE
2017-07-20	CASE NUMBER FD-2016- 00416	
TYPE
Entry Level Discharge		PERSONAL APPEARANCE	X	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 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
# - Reenlistment Eligibility Code

(b) (6)	(b)
(6)	

TO:
SAF/MRBR (CITU)
550-C STREET WEST, SUITE 41 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4743		FROM:
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1500 WEST PERIMETER ROAD, SUITE 3700
JOINT BASE ANDREWS-NAVAL AIR FACILITY, MD 20762	
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, AUG 17	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00416	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), but declined and requested 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 found 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 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 Entry Level Separation for Adjustment Disorder. The applicant did not make any contentions with regard to the discharge. The applicant stated the suicidal ideas that were communicated to his training instructor and the mental health provider were fabricated because he believed that was the fastest way to get out of basic military training and back home. The applicant requested the upgrade in order to obtain a medical waiver that would render him eligible to continue military service. The applicant has completed his bachelor’s degree and is currently employed as a 911 dispatcher. The DRB reviewed the record and determined the applicant’s discharge was processed in accordance with AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.11., Conditions That Interfere with Military Service. Paragraph 5.11.9. of AFI 36-3208 states a recommendation for discharge must be supported by a report of evaluation by a psychiatrist or PhD-level clinical psychologist who confirms the diagnosis of a disorder listed in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The Board determined a qualified mental health professional conducted the evaluation and concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

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 discharge. Additionally, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization, change of reason and authority for the discharge, or change to the reenlistment eligibility code.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the separations instruction, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge	

characterization, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, or the reenlistment eligibility code.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief