AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FlRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b)(6)

I	I

TYPE  GEN	PERSONAL	APPEARANCE	x	RECORD	REVIEW
NAME orCOUNSEi. AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

YES	No
x

VOTE OFTIIE BOARD
MEMBER	SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

(b)(6)	x

f-
x
f-
x
f-
x
f-
x
ISSUES	A94.0S	INDEX HUM BER	A67.10	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTlFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OFPERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARlNG

HJ!:ARINC DATE	CASE NUMBER

19 May 2016	FD-2014-00302
.¥l!UClllU"$--'1111S	All&Clll''PSA1TMJ!ll!DJllR.Flm"B-llOMl9'•--MU.

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

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

'

(b)(6)	-

............_

INDORS&MENT	DATE:
TO:	FROM:

SAFfMRBR

SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCEPERSONNELCOUNOL AIR l'ORCE DISCHARGE RE\llEW BOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	15>5COMMAND DR,EEWING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB,TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB.MO 2076:Z..7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00302	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization 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.

Pursuant to 10 USC 1553 this board included a member who is a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with training on mental health issues connected with post traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury and/or special training on mental health disorders.

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

FINDING: The Board finds insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant's discharge.

DISCUSSION: The applicant was discharged for Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions with service characterized as Under Honorable Conditions (UHC) (General). 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 evidence available to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety, but noted that the discharge package was not available for review. The applicant's record of service included: Article 15 and a Vacation of  Suspended  Nonjudicial  Punishment.  His  misconduct included making a false official statement to a Senior Noncommissioned  Officer with intent to deceive (2x).

The applicant states that he had continuous honorable service in his first enlistment and only minor infractions during his second enlistment. Based on his service, he feels he should not be barred from receiving benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). The Board noted that the applicant's Under Honorable Conditions discharge renders him ineligible for DVA educational benefits; however, did not find that this established that his discharge involved inequity or impropriety. The Board also noted that the psychiatrist did not find any mental health issues that support that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge. A discharge is only upgraded if it is established that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that based on the presumption ofregularity in the conduct of governmental affairs, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and  substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that 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 the discharge and determines it should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief