AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
{b){6)
TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
I	COllNSEL	NAMI: OFCOUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANlZATl ON OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OFTHE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
{b)(6)	x
x x
x x
ISSUES	A94.05	INDt:X NUMHR	A67.10	EXRIBITS SUBMrITEDTOTHE BOARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTmCATION	 	
4 BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANC E HEARING

HEARING DA'rE	CASE NUMBER

27 May 2015	FD-2014-00552
APPIJCAHT'S ISSUE AND n!E BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON 11IEA1TACHEI> Al'- FOllCll DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL lATIOSALli.

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: . 6129/2015	i
-· ·-	---------	·--··-···	.... -- --		....!

TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OFTifE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
Alli FOKCIS DISCHARGE REVIEW BOAllD
SSO C STREET WEST,SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, l!.E WlNC,lRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB,MD 2076J.7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00552	

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. In order to adhere to Mental Health Amendments to 10 USC 1553, a physician with specialized training on mental health disorders was present for this board. The applicant's record of service included one Article 15, three Letters of Reprimand and four Letters of Counseling. The misconduct included failing to maintain dorm room standards, with intent to deceive, making false official statement to SNCO; leaving flashlight inside the number five engine inlet; failing fitness assessment; failing to go to medical appointment; failing to follow order to not take cell phone onto flight line on two separate occasions; failing to maintain proper personal hygiene, maintaining clean uniform and not presenting a positive military image; failing to use proper personal protective equipment as required and failing to maintain tool control as previously ordered.

Although not explicitly stated, applicant feels discharge was too harsh and over exaggerated. He feels that the paperwork that he received during his time in the military should not have been labeled misconduct but  as a failure to meet standards or miscommunication in some incidents. The DRB opined that through the administrative actions taken, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to
be 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.

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