--

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE Ml>:MBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

x	^RECORD ^REVIEW
or

ADDRl:SS A1'D OR OR<;A',11?.\TION

x

COU1''SEL

MEMBER SITTING

^HON	GEN	^UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSlltS

A94.SS

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

EXHIBlTS SUBMfffED TO THE BOARD
l ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2   APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
LErf l:R OF NOTIFICATION
BRIEFOF PERSONNEL FILE
COU SEl..'S RELEASE TOTHE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITIED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL AP PEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

11£ARING  DAT£	^CASE ^NUMBER

^15 ^Oct ^2014	F0-2014-00363

Case heard in Wash ington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearace with/without counsel, and the right <o submit an application to the AFBCMR.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST,SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB. TX 78 150-4742

S£CRETAR\'Of Ttt t 1\ I R fORCt PtRSONNt;L COUNCii.. AIRfORCE DISCHARGE R tVl tW BOARD
ISJS COMMA.'<D DR,Et WING, JRO fLOOR Al'WR1:ws ,\18, M il 2076?-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00363

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable

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.

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

FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE:  Applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct: Minor Disciplinary Infractions

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 character 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 did complete 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. The Applicant's record of service included five Letters of Reprimand and three Letters of Counseling. His misconduct included failure to go to duty on time (2x's), failure to report to duty (2x's), failure to pay rent (2x's) and court fees, failure to shave prior to reporting to work and failure to notify leadership of arrest by British police for non-payment of speeding ticket.

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable. He states that he is suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from a head on collision that occurred on the same day he returned from a six-month deployment. Applicant states that he was taking lots of pain pills and believes that the minor infractions were a result of the PTSD. The Board reviewed the entire record and documents submitted by applicant and found no correlation to his medical diagnosis and his acts of misconduct. The board found no evidence of PTSD in the applicant's active duty medical records. The applicant failed to provide documentation concerning this matter from any Veterans Association medical records. Additionally, there was no mention of medical issues either in his responses to his punishment or in the response to discharge. The DRB opined that through the administrative actions taken, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief