AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVlEW BOARD HEARJNG RECORD
NAM E OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INlTIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)

TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL   APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD   REVIEW	 	
COONStL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANl1.ATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORCANIZATJONOFCOUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OFTHE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
x x x
x
ISSUES	A94.0l	INDEX NllM8tR	A67. 10	EXHIBITS SUBMITTEDTO THE BOARD
1 ORDER APPOfNTfNG THE BOARD
2 APPLJCATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETIER OF NOTrFICATION
4  BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FE
COUNSEL'S RELEASETO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE  HEARING

HJ!ARlf'IG  DATE	CASE NUMBER

14 Aug 2015	FD-2014-00339
Al'l'LICANT"S ISSUE AND nt1!BOARD'S DSCISIONAJ. RATIONIU.E AllE DISCUSSl!D ON 1l£ATTACllED AllUORC!l DISCHAROE lUmEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATlONALE

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)	-

INDORSEMENT	DATE: 8121/2015
TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

550 CSTREET 'WEST.SUITE 40

1535 COMMA1'TJ DR,Ji:Ji: WlNC,lRJ) FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB.MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00339	

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: The 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 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's record of service included two Article IS's for driving under the influence  of alcohol and failure to refrain from driving on base per lawful order not to do so.

The applicant contends her discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. She claims that due to her foot being injured, she had no choice but to drive on base, although she had been ordered not to. According to applicant's records, she received her second Article 15 for intentionally driving on base while base privileges had been suspended for a DUI. The DRB surmised the applicant had not exhausted all avenues to procure a means of transportation other than driving herself on base at the time of the incident. The Board found the negative aspects of the willful misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of the applicant's performance and concluded that the discharge was appropriate.

A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the Board can establish that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge. After a thorough review of the record, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that 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.

Inview 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