AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, fiRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b)(6)	HEARING DATE
2016-12-05	CASE NUMBER
FD-2014-
00270	
TYPE	x	PERSONAL APPEARANCE		NON-PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	
COUNSEL	K-\!l!E OF COUl\SEL AND OR ORC..\J<"IZATIO!'	ADDRESSAND OR ORCANIZATIO!' OFCOUl\SEL	
Yes	No			
				
MEMBER SITTING	VOTE OF THE BOARD	
	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
(b)(6)	x				*#	
(b)(6)	x				*#	
(b)(6)	X#				*	
(b)(6)	x				*#	
(b)(6)	x				*#	
						
ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD	
		1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
		2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION	
		4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
			COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
			ADDITTONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF  PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING	
APPUCANT'SISSUEANDTHEBOARDSDECTSIONALRATIONALE   AREDJSCUSSEDONTllEAITACllEDAIRFORCEDISCHARCEREVIEWBOARDDECJS  IONALRATIONALE	
Case heard in Washington , D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

(b)(6)

SJCNAllrRE OFBOARD PRESIDENT	DATE:21612017	
TO:
SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB,TX 78150-4742	FROM:
SECRETARY OFlHE AIR FORCE PERSONl\""EL C01"JNCJL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BO,'\RD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE \\'lNC, 3RD FLOOR
.-\NDREWSAFB, MD ?076!-7001	
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00270	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization to Honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference between Joint Base Andrews, MD, and Robins AFB, GA on December 5, 2016.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit #5: Additional Documents

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

FINDING: After a review of the record and testimony from the applicant, the Board voted to grant the relief of the requested upgrade as discussed below.

DISCUSSION: The applicant received a General discharge for unsatisfactory participation. 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.

The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable and improper. He claims that he was never notified that he was being discharged for non-participation and only learned of it when the action was complete. He also feels the character of his service fails to take into consideration the good things he did while serving. When he unexpectedly ended up with custody of his two-year old son, he feels that he did his due diligence in making his leadership aware of his inability to attend mandatory Unit Training Assemblies (UTAs).

A discharge is upgraded only if it is established that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge. After a thorough review of the record and testimony of the applicant, the Board found sufficient evidence to warrant an upgrade of the applicant’s character of service. The Board noted that the official record states that letters sent to the applicant regarding the proposed action to discharge him for unsatisfactory participation were returned and the unit was unable to forward them. However, no affidavit as required by AFI36-3209 is found in the record. The Board found the applicant’s assertion that he informed his chain of command of his situation to be credible and noted that it appeared the applicant was caught between two units, his officially assigned unit in North Carolina and the unit in Florida he was advised to perform UTAs until an official transfer was completed. While the Board agreed the applicant had responsibility to meet the requirements of his officially assigned position, it does appear that an informal process of transfer of assignment was condoned by the member’s official unit. In that regard, the Board noted that although the applicant relocated in 2006, the record reflects no action against him until 2009 when he was demoted and then subsequently discharged. After considering all of the available information, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge involved impropriety and that characterizing his service as honorable was more appropriate.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was inconsistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and finds the applicant was not provided full administrative due process.	

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the overall quality of applicant’s service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge under the provisions of 10 USC §1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief