AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAM E OF SERVICE M EMBER (LAST, FIRST MI DDLE IN ITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
(b) (6)	(b) (6)
TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL   APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNStL	NAME OF COUNSl:L ANO OR ORGANIZ.ITI ON	ADOR£SSANO OR ORGANIZ.;ITION OFCOUNSEL
\'£S	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	llON	GEN	UOTllC	OTllER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
x x x
x

ISSlJeS

A94.53

INDEX Nll-'HJt;R

A67.SO

EXlll81TS SUBMITTED TO TllE BOARD
1 ORDER APPOINTING TH E IJOARD
2 APPLICAT ION FOR REVIEW OF DISCllARGE
3  LETrER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE B01\RD
ADDITIONAL EXH I BITS SUBMITrED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPE/\R 1\NCE
·1 APE RF.CORDll\G OF Pl:R ONAL APPEARANO; H l:ARIN(J

II EARING DATE	('ASI-:NUMUf.R

26 Feb 2015	FD-20 14-00535
APPLICANT'S 1$Sl1E ANDTllE l'IOARl)·s DfCISl(NAL RATIONALC ARP. DISCUSSED ON THE A'ITACllFO Al'R fORCt DISCHAR()ll l\EYIEW OOAf\D DECISl<"JNAL RATION ALil

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

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

(b) (6)

INOORSEMEl\'T	DATE:  3/20/20 15
·-
TO:	FROI:
SAf/MROR	SECRETARY OF" "lllE .i-\IR f". ()RC •:Pf'RSONr-..F.L ('OllN(ll.
AIR FORCE OISCllARCE Rf.VIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST. SlJITf. 40	l'!tC'OMMA.'10  OR.:• E  Wl     C.JRD rLOOR
RA>JDOLPH AFB, TX 78 150-174	ANOREll'SAfB. )![) 2076?-iOOI

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONA LE	

FD-2014-00535	

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 avai lable service record.

The attached brief contains available perti nent data on the appl icant and the factors lead ing to the discharge.

FINDING:  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE:  The applicant recei ved a General discharge for Misconduct -Pattern of Misconduct

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under its responsibi l i ty to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the characteri zation of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges. the Board presumes regularity i n the cond uct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial cred ible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence subm i tted by the applicant. The Board com pleted a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the discharge met the perti nent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant's record of service included one Article 15, one Vacation of Non-J ud icial Punishment and two Letters of Reprimand. Applicant's misconduct i ncl uded fai l ing to obey direct order of no contact (2x ·s), bei ng absent from place of duty for a period of approxi matel y 3 clays and dri ving u nder the influence.

The appl icant submitted no issues regard ing the ineq ui ty or impropriety of his discharge. The applicant does cite his desire to recei ve the G.I. Bill benefits as justification  for upgrade. The ORB noted that when the
appl ican t applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on October 23, 2009) that he understood he m ust recei ve an Honorable discha rge to recei ve future educational entitlements. The Board was sympathetic to the impact from the loss of these benefi ts to the appl icant; however. this is not a matter of inequi ty or im propriety which would warrant an upgrade.

A discharge is upgraded on l y if the appl icant and the Board can esta bl ish that an inequi ty or i mpropriety took place at the t ime of discharge.  After a thorough review of the record, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characteri zation.

CONCLUSION : The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive req uirements of the  discharge regulation, was withi n the  d iscret ion of the discharge authori ty, and that the applican t was provided full adm inistrati ve clue process.

J n view of the foregoing findi ngs, the Board fu1ther concludes tha t there exists no lega l or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determ ines the discharge should remai n unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief