AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVIC£ MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)
TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL APPEA RANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NMU: Of COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OFCOUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THEBOARD
MEMBER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DE  'Y
(b) (6)	x
x x
x x

ISSUES

A93.23

INOEX NVM0£

A67.10

EXBJBITS SUBMrrfED TO THE BOARD
I ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHA RGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATl ON
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL"S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITf ED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDrNO OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE  N\N8ER

03 Jun 2015	FD-2014-00568
APPLICAl'rr"S ISSUE AND TI-IE llOARl»S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSllD ON TI1E ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVl6W BOARD DECISIONAL R.ATIONA!.6

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 appl ication to the AFBCMR .

(b) (6)

INOORSEMENT	DATE:    7/16'2015
TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY or THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE R£YJEW SOARD
550 C STREET  WEST, SUITE  40	1535 COMMAND DR.EE WING. JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH  AFB.TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 2076! 7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00568	

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, one Vacation of Non-Judicial punishment ; three Letters of Reprimand , one Letter of Admonishment and two Letters of Counseling. The misconduct included being absent from place of duty (3x's); failure to notify chain of  command of  appointment; fishing on duty during unit exercise; failing remedial training for QC failure; failing initial standardization evaluation QC on close-in security and failing to have the proper equipment for CBRNE appointment.

The applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it does not fully characterize his time in the service.  Applicant mentions how he went through personal issues with his spouse and how it affected him mentally; having to see a psychiatrist and take anti-depressants.  After a review of the records and advice from the mental health specialist, the DRB found no evidence that the applicant had any mental issues documented or that would directly contribute to the misconduct.  The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.  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