AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OFSERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)
TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COONSEL	NAME OFCOUNSEL A>'ID OR ORGANJZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZ.ATION OF COUSSEL
YES	No

(b) (6)	(b) (6)
x

VOTE OF 1llEBOARD

MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
x x x x
ISSUES	A94.05	INDEX NUMBER	A67.10	EXHIBITS SUBMITl'ED TO THE BOARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONA L EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING  OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE  HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

22 Sep 2016	FD-2014-00676
APPLICANT'SISSUE AND 1llEBOAllD'SDECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON 1llEATTAOIED AIR FORCE DISCEIARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.

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)

I

/
(b) (6)

fNDORSEMENT	DATE:
TO:	FROM:

9/23/20liil

SAF/MRBR	SecR.ETARY Of111£ AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ISlS COMMAND DQ, EE WING, lRD FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 20761-;00!

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIE\V BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00676	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization 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.

Pursuant to 10 USC 1553 this board included a member who is a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with training on mental health issues connected with post traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury and/or special training on mental health disorders.

FINDING: The Board finds insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant's discharge.

DISCUSSION: 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. The applicant's record of service included: four Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of Admonishment and two Letters of Counseling. His misconduct included failing to go to duty (4x), failing to stay awake during commanders call, being charged and pleading guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol, disobeying a lawful order (2x), and failing to complete required training.

The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He feels that his misconduct did not warrant a General characterization discharge. He claims that his overall honorable service outweighs his disciplinary infractions.  The ORB opined that, through the administrative actions taken, the applicant
had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  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 it is established that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge. After a thorough review of the record and advice from the mental health specialist, the Board found no indication that any mental health issues had an impact on the applicant's misconduct or on his discharge. Additionally, 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