AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST, MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE
2017-09-14	CASE NUMBER
FD-2016-00493	
TYPE
General		PERSONAL APPEARANCE	X	NON-PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND/OR ORGANIZATION

(b) (6)	ADDRESS AND/OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

(b) (6)	
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 DRB.
(b) (6)	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00493	

GENERAL: The applicant was discharged on 18 Dec 06 in accordance with AFI 36-3207 with a General discharge for a Homosexual Act.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable and a change to the narrative reason to Secretarial Authority.  The board was conducted on 14 Sep 17.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), but declined and requested the board be completed based on a records only review. The applicant was represented by counsel (Ms. Stacey Stark of Winston & Strawn, LLP).

Pursuant to 10 USC §1553, the 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 (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI), and/or 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 unanimously to approve the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable and to change the narrative reason to Secretarial Authority.

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 narrative reason for discharge if such changes are 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’s record of service did not include any documented misconduct.

The applicant contended his discharge was improper based on the guidance released in conjunction with the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 2011.

Based on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy was repealed effective 20 Sep 11.  The act authorized some former military members discharged under DADT (or a similar policy prior to DADT) to request a correction to their discharge records. Based on this, the board concluded his discharge was improper due to this change in the law.  Per guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, applicant requests should be approved when the original discharge was based solely on DADT (or a similar policy prior to DADT) and there were no aggravating factors in the record, such as misconduct.  The board determined the facts in this case met both of these criteria and therefore approved the applicant’s request.

CONCLUSION: The board determined the applicant’s discharge was improper based the guidance released in conjunction with the repeal of DADT. Therefore, it determined the overall characterization of the applicant’s service was more accurately reflected by an Honorable characterization and the narrative reason for discharge should be Secretarial Authority.

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 27 Sep 17.  If desired, 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