AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2017-00077	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization to Honorable, to change the 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 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: one Article 15; one Letter of Counseling; and one Record of Individual Counseling. Her misconduct included assaulting a Senior Non-Commissioned Officer (SNCO) by throwing her security badge at them; assaulting a Senior Non-Commissioned Officer by striking him on the chest with her hands; displaying disrespectful conduct while speaking with her flight chief; and failing to involve her supervisor or flight leadership in addressing her re-enlistment by failing to properly route re-enlistment paperwork.

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 – Serious Offense. The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because the striking incident was self-defense, and improper because the badge was never thrown at the SNCO. The applicant also contends that the Article 15 was declined and a court-martial was requested but the command disregarded that request. The applicant desires the upgrade in order to enlist in the Army National Guard. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. The Board found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of the applicant's military service.

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, change of reason and authority for the discharge, or change to the reenlistment code.

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 found no evidence to justify characterizing the applicant’s	

service as honorable, changing the reason and authority for the discharge, or changing the reenlistment code.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief