AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE
2017-03-29	CASE NUMBER FD-2016- 00418	
TYPE
Honorable		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
* - Reentry Code	(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-2016-00418	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals to change the narrative reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

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 majority 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: three Letters of Reprimand; and two Records of Individual Counseling. His misconduct included failing to go to appointed place of duty (3x); reporting late to work; and failing to go to duty on time.

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 Personality Disorder. The applicant contends the DD214 mischaracterizes his mental health, and reentry code prohibits him from finding employment with the government or returning to military service. The applicant states the narrative reason should reflect something the he suffered from rather than personality disorder. A psychology exam was submitted by the applicant to validate the claim that he suffered from depression and anxiety, not from a personality disorder. The applicant also submitted his completed Juris Doctorate degree to validate his qualifications for government positions and military service that the narrative reason and reentry code hinder him from obtaining. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant is doing well and completed his Juris Doctorate degree. However, the Board reviewed the entire record and the majority found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant a change of the narrative reason or reenlistment code, as the applicant had received this diagnosis while in service. The DRB opined that the applicant received due process based on the information provided at the time of the discharge.

After a thorough review of the record, the Board majority found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization or the reenlistment code.

The Board highly recommends that if the applicant can provide additional information to substantiate his contentions, he should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  If the applicant chooses to exercise this right, he should provide evidence of any inequity or impropriety, as well as proof of any exemplary post-service accomplishments or contributions to the community.

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 majority found no evidence to justify a change to the reason and authority for the discharge or reenlistment code.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief