AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-0217-00341	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 5 Jul 15 in accordance with AFI 36-3209 with an Honorable discharge for Expiration of Enlistment.  The applicant appealed for a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.  The board was conducted on 12 Sep 18.  

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 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 change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority, and to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 6A.

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 contended the discharge was inequitable because the discharge occurred during an ongoing discrimination, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint, and a whistle blower investigation.  The applicant states the Commander abused his power.  The applicant states she was notified of performance issues while she was on a medical profile that prohibited her from performing duty andshe contends she was never afforded the opportunity to present her side of the situation.  The applicant insists after she started to complain, she was not selected for reenlistment, her security clearance was suspended, and her base access was restricted. 

The DRB reviewed the entire record and discovered that the claims submitted to EEO were investigated, and the complaint was found to be unsubstantiated.  The DRB concluded that there was no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant any changes to the discharge.

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 19 Sep 18.  If desired, the applicant can request a list of the board members and their votes by writing to:  
Air Force Review Boards Agency
Attn: Discharge Review Board
1500 West Perimeter road, Suite 3700
Joint Base Andrews, NAF Washington, MD 20762-6602  

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief