AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD  HEARJNG RECORD
NAM E OF' SERVI CE M EMBEn (LAST, FIRST MI DDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b)(6)
TYPE   GE	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAM E OF COSEL AND OR ORCA.'llZAT IOS	ADDRESS A;'IO OR ORCANIZATI ON OF COU:<SEL
'ES	No
x
VOTE OFTH£ BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	lJOTHC'	OTHER	DENY
(b)(6)	x
x x
x x
I SSUES	A94.53	·otx NUMB ER	A67.30	EXHIBITS SUBMJTIED TO nt E BOARD
1 ORDER APPOIITTING THE BOARD
2 Al'l'LICATlON t-OR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LEn ER OF NOTIFICATION
4  BRJEF Of PERSONNEL Fl LE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO rHE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTtO /\I TIMI:. OF PERSONAL A PPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

BEARI NG DATE	CASE NUM BER

21 Apr 2015	FD-2014-00542
APPLICANT' S ISSUE ANO THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSEDON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARCE RllVIEW BOARD DOCISIONAI   RATIONAUl.

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)	--

lNDORSEMENT	DATE:   4127/2015
TO:	FRO t:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY OFTllEAIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40

15J; COMMA,'11) OR.(£ \\'I NG.3RO FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	AXDREWS AFB.MD 20762-700 1

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00542	

GENERA L:  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 appl icant received a General discharge for Misconduct - Serious Offense

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's d ischarge, 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 a notification memorandum for discharge  dated November 22, 201 1, para. 2, citing reason for discharge as prosecution in civilian court for third degree assault. The record of service also included one Letter of Reprimand  for failing to report to duty and sign in at the end of convalescent leave.

The applicant submitted no issues regarding the inequity or impropriety of his discharge.  The applicant did state that six months have passed and he would like an upgrade of his discharge.  The Board noted this issue is a common resul t of miscommunication, at the time of discharge, when the applicant is briefed that their discharge will automatically be upgraded after six months.  While a discharge may be upgraded after six months, the upgrade is by no means automatic.  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, reason for the discharge or the reenlistment code.

CONCLUS ION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requi rements 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: Exami ner's Brief