AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2016-00445	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 18 Nov 14 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable.  

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference between Joint Base Andrews, MD and Warner-Robins AFB, GA on 25 Sep 17.  No witnesses were present to testify on the applicant’s behalf.  Two additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing.

Pursuant to 10 USC §1553, the board included a member who is a clinical psychiatrist with training on mental health issues connected with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI), and 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 upgrade the applicant’s discharge characterization to General.  It did not approve his request to upgrade his characterization to Honorable.

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’s record of service included an Article 120B charge of committing a sexual act upon a child who had attained the age of 12, but not the age of 16.  

The applicant contended the discharge was an isolated incident and does not reflect his overall character.  He maintained he was unaware of the age of the child when the sexual acts occurred.  

The board reviewed the entire service record and based upon it and the applicant’s testimony, the majority found no conclusive evidence that the applicant was aware of the victim’s age when he had sex with her.  Therefore, the majority concluded his misconduct was unintentional since he believed the victim was a consenting adult.  Despite the board’s decision to upgrade the applicant’s discharge characterization, in no way does it condone the applicant’s misconduct in this case.  

After a thorough review of the service record and inputs from the board’s psychiatrist, the DRB found no conclusive indication that any mental health issues had a direct impact on the applicant's misconduct or discharge.

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 majority determined the overall characterization of the applicant’s service was more accurately reflected by a General discharge.      

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 25 Oct 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