AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST, MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE
2017-08-10	CASE NUMBER FD-2016- 00489	
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 at JB Andrews, MD.

# - Narrative Reason

Advise applicant of the decision of the board.
(b) (6)	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00489	

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 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 3 to 2 to approve the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable, to change the discharge reason to Secretarial Authority, and to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 3K.

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 received a General discharge for Unsatisfactory Performance. He contended the discharge was inequitable because nothing in the nature of his service should have resulted in the loss of his veteran benefits. He stated his belief that anxiety alone should not generally be a basis for discharge. The applicant also contended the discharge was improper due to the commander’s belief that he failed to progress in training because of issues that were within his control, specifically, that he exhibited a lack of motivation and willpower. The applicant believed his diagnosis of anxiety proved his failure to progress was beyond his control.

The DRB concluded there were numerous indicators of the applicant’s ability to serve satisfactorily, as well as his ability to adjust to military service. It found evidence to support his contention that anxiety was a key mitigating factor and prevented him from progressing in his demanding air traffic control training. He stated this at the time, but it appeared to have been discounted by his chain of command. The board determined his anxiety negatively impacted his capability to complete technical training. Therefore, it concluded that while discharge was appropriate, a General service characterization was inequitable.

CONCLUSION: The board found neither the evidence of record, nor that provided by the applicant substantiated an impropriety. However, sufficient evidence existed to convince the board the discharge was inequitable. Therefore, the board determined the overall characterization of the applicant’s service was more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge was more accurately described as Secretarial Authority. Additionally, the reenlistment eligibility code was changed to 3K.

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 24 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.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief