AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2016-00499	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 16 May 12 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable.  The board was conducted on 21 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 not represented by counsel.   

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 unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge 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 narrative 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 two Letters of Reprimand, both for Driving Under the Influence.

The applicant contended the discharge was inequitable because he had no disciplinary actions taken against him 36 months prior to his second DUI and he did not have adequate time to seek assistance from the Area Defense Counsel prior to his discharge.  More specifically, he claimed he was only notified of his discharge one day prior to his separation date of 16 May 12.

The DRB found his claim that he had no disciplinary actions taken against him 36 months prior to his second DUI to be insignificant.  It also noted he was notified of his commander’s intent to discharge him on 26 Apr 12; he signed a memorandum acknowledging receipt on the same date.  Further, an appointment with the Area Defense Counsel was scheduled for him on 26 Apr 12 as well.  Therefore, the board did not concur with his contention that he did not have time to consult with the Area Defense Counsel.  The board concluded the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions he made during his Air Force career.
 
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 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 his request was not approved. 

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 24 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