AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAM E OF SElVICE J\IEl\IBER (LAST, FIRST MIOOlE INITIAL)	GRADE	A FSN/SSAN
(b) (6)	(b) (6)
TYPE   GEN	I	PERSONAL APPEARAN CE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COU1'"SEI.	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORCANll.ATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OJ' COUNSEL
>'ES	No
x
VOTE OF TAEBOARD
MEMBER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
x
.	x
x
x
ISSUES	A94.53	INDEX NUMBER	A66.00	EX  IUBITSSUBMITIEDTOTHE       BOARD
l ORDER APPO INTING THE BOARD
2   APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3  LETTER OF NOTfFICATION
4  BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME Of PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

25 Mar 20 15	FD-2014-00538
APPLICANTS ISSUE AND TilE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON 1HF. ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE RF.VIEIV ROARO DFCISIONAI. RATIONAI .E

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise appl icant 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)

JNDORSEMENT	DATE: 3127/2015
TO:	FROM:
SAF/M RBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCI L
AIR t·ORCt OISCUAKCt: ftt:\flt:W UOAKD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	ISJS COl\IAND DR. EE Wlr<G, JRO FLOOR
RANDOLPH   AFB,TX  78 150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

AFHQ FORM  0-2077,JAN 00	(EF'-Y2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUl\'IBER

FD-2014-00538	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

The applicant was offered a persona l appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) 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 -Drug Abuse

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 three Letters of Reprimand and an Article 15. His misconduct included driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to obey a direct order, hanging out a window of a car while another member was driving in a negligent manner, wrongful use of marijuana, and communicating a threat to another Airman.

The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade.  The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on 22 December 2008) that he understood he must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educationa l entitlements. The Board was sympathetic to the impact from the loss of these benefits to the applicant; however, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.
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 just ify 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.

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