AIR  FORCE DISCHARG E REV IEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NA(\<IE Of SERVI CE M EMBER (LAST, FIRST Ml l)l)LE IN ITIAL)	GRAOE
(b) (6)

TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD   REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSf L ANO OR ORG,\17JITI O	ADDRESS ANO OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARI)
ME   IBER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTllC	OTllER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
x
x

ISSUES

A94 .53

I NIJ EX Nll IBER

x
x
A66.00	EXHIBITS SUBMfffEO TO THE BOARD
I ORDER APPOINTING Tll E BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVI EW OF DISCHARGE
3	LFITER OF NOTIFI(ATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO TH E BOARD
ADD ITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL   APPEARANCE

TAPE R ECORDING OF PERSONAi  APPEARANCE HEAR ING

HEARING OAT!:	CASE NUMU R

21 Apr 20 15	F0-2014-00640
APPLICANT·s ISSUEANO  l"llEBOARD"S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE OISCllSSEO OWTllEATIACllCO AIR  FORCE DISCllARGERl.lVIEW  BOARD OFCISIONAL  RATIO>iALE

Case heard  in Wash i ngton, D.C.

Advise applica nt of the decision of the Board,  the right to a persona l appearance witlvw irhout counsel, i:t ntl th<:: right to submi t an appl ication to the Af BCMR.

(b) (6)

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 c STREET WEST. sun E -10
RANDOLPH AFl1, TX 7R 150-17-12

INlJUl<Sf.Mt:NT	DATE::  4/23/2015

S£C K£IAK ) Ot' rm:AIK tOKCE PEKSo. 1<1;1.COUNCii,
,\IR FORCE OISCllARGf;KEv11w BOARD 15.35COll,\ IJ DR,EE WING. JRIJ t'LOOR ANDllEWS Mil.MD lQ762-i00 1

AFHQ FO RM 0-2077, JAN 00	(ff-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVlEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00640	

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

The applicant was offered a personal  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 lead ing to the discharge.

FINDING:  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge

ISSUE:  The applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct -Drng Abuse

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under i ts 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 substantia l 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 one A11icle  15, three  Letters  of  Reprimand  and  five Letters of Counseling. H i s misconduct included wrongfull y using mul tiple  over  the  counter  medications contrary to  the  intended  medical  purpose  in  order  to  alter  mood  or  function;  dormitory  room  inspection fai lure (Jx); fitness failures (3x); altercation with another airman; and fai lure of visual recognition annual examination   (Jx).

The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.l. Bill benefi ts as justification  for upgrade.  The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statemen t (DD Fonn 2366, on January 7,
20 I 0) that he understood he must receive an Honorable discharge to recei ve future educational 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 appl icant and the Board can establ ish that an ineq ui ty 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.

CONCLUS ION : The Discharge Review Board concl udes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substant ive requirements of the discharge regulation , was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the appl icant was provided full administrati ve 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 detennines the discharge should rema in unchanged.

A ttachment: Exami ner's Brief