AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOA RD H EARING RECORD
i'iAME Of SERVICE i.\'fEMBER (UST. FIRST MIDDLE IMTIAL)	GRADE
{b} (6)
TYPE	x	I .  PERSONAL APPEARANCE	I	RECORD   REVI EW
COUNS£L	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORCAJl/IUTION	ADDRESS AND OR ORCANl7..A11011/ OF COUNSEL
YES	11/o
x
VOTEOFTHE  BOARD
MEM BER  ITTING	HON	GEN	UOTllC	OTHER	DENY
{b} {6}	x
x

x
x
x
ISl>llES	A94.05	lDE:< N  18ER	A66.00	EXHIBITS SUBMITfED TO THE BOARD
l ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF :-IOTIFICATION
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

HEARING DATE	CASE  NU18ER

29 Jun 2015	FD·20 l4-00070
Al'PIXAST S lSSllt.A". D1llE BOARD'S DEClSIONALRATIOSA.1..EARE DISCUSSW OSlHEATTAOIED AIR FORCE DISCHAAGERE\'lEWBOARD  DECISIONAL RATl<l'IAl..E	;
'
Case heard in Washington , D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to subm it an application to the AFBCMR.

{b} (6)	-

INDORSEMENT	DATE:   711312015
TO:	FROM:

SAf/MRBR

SECRETARY Of"TILEAIR FORCE rt!RSONN£l. COU!"Cl l.
AIR FORCE DISO,IARCE Rt:VIEW BOARD
SSO C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	IS» COMMAND OR. CE\\ ING, JRD t"'LOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150742	A:>'DREl\'S AFB.MD  l0762-7001

A FHQ FORJ'\1 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF·V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00070	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to General.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel,  at Andrews AFB on June 29, 2015.

There were no additional exhibits submitted at the hearing.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING: The Board grants the requested relief.

ISSUE: The applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge for misconduct - Drug Abuse

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 Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. In order to adhere to Mental Health Amendments  to 10 USC 1553, a physician with specialized training on mental health disorders was present for this board. The applicant's record of service included three Article l 5s and one Letter of Counseling. His misconduct included sleeping on duty; failure to wear individual protective  equipment; use of marijuana on divers occasions; providing alcoholic beverages to underage individuals and failure to refrain from possessing or consuming alcoholic beverages in the dorm.

The applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He stated that after deploying to Iraq and the passing of his great-grandmother, he had difficulties with handling stress and sleeping. The applicant feels that his mental health and sleep issues were directly related to his misconduct. After review of the records and advice from the mental health specialist, the DRB found sufficient mitigation based upon the applicant's overall duty performance and the compelling statements of the applicant to grant an upgrade. Although the Board does not condone applicant's misconduct , the Board majority finds his discharge harsh.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the  overall  quality  of  applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Under Honorable Conditions (General) under the provisions of Title  10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief