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- 00511	
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.

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)

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00511	

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 (PTSD) 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 board found insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant’s discharge.

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.

Since the applicant’s request for relief was based in part on matters relating to PTSD that may be associated with alleged military sexual trauma (MST), the board considered this case based on the liberal consideration standard required by 10 USC §1553.

The applicant’s record of service included: three Letters of Reprimand, two Letters of Counseling, and a record of individual counseling. Her misconduct included sleeping on duty (3x), failure to go to an appointment, illegal use of marijuana in base housing by her spouse, and failure to show proper customs and courtesies toward a senior noncommissioned officer.

The applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct (Minor Disciplinary Infractions). She contended the discharge was inequitable because the misconduct could be traced back to an incident during basic training when she suffered from heat exhaustion and heat stroke. The applicant insisted chronic fatigue caused her to experience blackouts that were misinterpreted as her falling asleep at work. She further contended the required medical tests to determine the root cause of her chronic fatigue and blackouts were never conducted. The applicant also loosely referenced being the victim of sexual assault/sexual harassment within her application.

After a thorough review of her records, the board found no evidence of a nexus between the applicant’s misconduct and any medical conditions. The applicant’s files did not indicate she had ever been diagnosed with PTSD or any other mental health condition that could be attributed to MST. Her mental health diagnoses (adjustment disorder, anxiety, and personality disorder) were not likely to have been caused or exacerbated by MST. Although the applicant submitted a civilian medical note indicating she said she was a victim of MST, there was no evidence presented to support this claim. While the applicant alleged doctors would not run the tests she believed she needed, her medical records and doctors’ notes indicated she	

received proper care.

While the DRB is sensitive to the challenges victims of MST face, under the circumstances of this case, the board could not find a nexus between the alleged MST and the applicant’s misconduct. The board found that through the administrative proceedings, the applicant had ample opportunities to identify the medical bases for her behavior, seek assistance, and change her behavior to conform to military standards, but did not.

CONCLUSION: The board found insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant’s discharge. Therefore, the discharge received by the applicant was deemed to be appropriate and her request was not approved.

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 25 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