AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD IIEAR I NG RECORD
AM E Of' SERVICE i\ I E;\ llJEl((LAST, FI RST i\llOOLE I 'ITIAL)	GRADE	AFS/SSAN
(b)(6)
TYPE GE:"J	I	PER   ONAL APPEARAN CE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW

,.

COl,Sl:L	'\\II Of COl  SCL \\DOR ORGA\l/  TIOS	\ DDRl:SS "D 0R ORC\!\ll.A110" Of COll"SEI.
\ ES
x

1EMBER   SITTING	-

von;or. Tll E BOARD
HON	GFN	UO l llC	U I HER	DtNY

(b)(6)	x
x x x x
ISSl'ES	A 94.53	l\lll.\ '<I  llBlK	A67.10	:X lllBITS SUl3\11Tn:o TO THE BOAIW
I ORDl·R Al'POIN1ING 1 llF BOARD
>->-
2 i\PPI IC"A 110\J FOR RE\ II'\\' OF DISC'llARGE
3 I H l  R OI NO llFIC'A llON
.t BRll I 01 Pl'RSONNFI Fii f
COUf\SI I  S RI 1 l:ASI' TO I Ill·BO \RD
\ ODll IO'J \I l'X llllJll Sl BMITTED ,\T "111\IE OF Pl RSON \I   \l'l'I \IV\\/('I
I \l'I RITORDING OF Pl RSO\ \l J\l'PE,\RA CE HEARING

111:.\.Rl...,,C 0 ,.,L	< ' ' 'l 'IDLR
02 Apr 2015	F0-2014-00670
APPl ICA1'"T s l<;\I T " D rnr 001\RD·s DfCISIO'\"I RATIO,AI F ARF DIS<'\ SSF.DON THE ATIACHED AIR fORCF. DIS<"llAR(i[R[Vlr\\ 801\lDl)t (IS'°'Al. RAl l\)\AI c

Case heard in Washing1011, D.C.

Advise applicant of the dec ision of !he Board, the right to a personal appearance wi 1h/wit hou1 counsel, and 1he right 10 submit an application to 1hc A l·BCMR.

(b) (6)

(b)(6)
TO_I

0A1 t:: 4/212015

FRO\I:

S1\F11\IR HR
550 ("S I RI I·I \\'I S I,   l 111 -10
Ri\NDOLPll A l B  I	s 1 50-17-1

"nu.1 \R\ 01 IIll \IM t'ORO.PEK O'CL COL  (II.
\IRt ORCt Dl <ll\RGI RE\lf.11 80 \ RD
l<l< C O\l\l"l> OR.11 111\G.JRIJ ILOOll
\ 0JH \\ '- \ R. \Ill lt7'1.7t01

AFIIQ FORM 0-2077, .JA N 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONA L RATIONALE	CASE NUIBER

FD-2014-00670	

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 conta i ns available perti nent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDI NG : The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE: The appl icant received a General discharge for Misconduct - Minor Discipl inary Infractions

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under i ts responsibi l i ty to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the characteri zation of service and the reason for discharge i f such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Boa rd presumes regulari ty in the conduct of governmental affairs u nless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to incl ude 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 perti nent standards of equity and propriety. The applicant's record of service included one Article 15 for failing to report to appointed place of duty from December 15, 2008 through January 5, 2009 on divers occasions; one Vacation of non-jud icial punishment for fail ing to go to place of duty; three Letters of Repri mand for sexually assaulti ng a woman, failing to report to appointed place, and arriving to requi red tra ining on a mandatory duty day an hour and thi rty minutes late; three Letters of Counseli ng for disrespect ing an NCO by ignori ng them, leaving place of duty without authori ty, and reporting to duty 50 minutes late.

The member made no conten tion of impropriety or i nequi ty.  The appl icant did cite his desire to recei ve the
G.l. Bill benefi ts as justification for upgrade. The OR B noted that when the applicant applied for these  benefi ts, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on January 8, 2008) that he u nderstood he m ust recei ve an Honorable discharge to recei ve future educational entitlements. The Board was sympathet ic to the impact from the loss of these benefi ts lo the applicant; however, this i s not a matter of ineq ui ty or impropriety which wou ld warra nt an u pgrade.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge  Review Board concludes t hat t he discharge was consistent with the procedural and sub tanti vc req u irements of the discharge regu lat ion, was withi n the discretion  of  the discharge authority, and t hat the appl icant was provided  full administ rati ve due process.

ln view of the foregoi ng find ings. the Board further concludes that t here exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should rema in unchanged.

Attachment: Exami ner's Brief