AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST, MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE
2017-07-26	CASE NUMBER FD-2016- 00442	
TYPE
General		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.
(b) (6)

SIGNATURE OF BOARD PRESIDENT	DATE: 8/2/2017	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00442	

GENERAL: The applicant appealed for upgrade of discharge characterization to Honorable.

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 applicant’s record of service included: one Article 15 and one Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment. His misconduct included willfully and wrongfully breaking a door of value under $500, being drunk and disorderly within the Federal Republic of Germany, and failure to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty.

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 contended the discharge was improper because he was diagnosed with adjustment disorder and alcohol abuse disorder, which proved the misconduct was not a result of willful disobedience, rather the result of his mental health disorders. The applicant stated he attended consistent treatment with mental health and social work professionals in an effort to improve his behavior and conduct. He also submitted a Veterans Affairs Disability Compensation letter that awarded him a 30 percent disability rating. The Board determined that through the administrative actions taken, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.

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 misconduct or discharge. Additionally, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization.

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 further concluded there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrading the discharge and determined the discharge should remain unchanged.	

Attachment: Examiner's Brief