AI R FORCE DISCHARGE REVI EW BOAR D IIEARJ NG RECORD
'IA;\l E OF SERVICE'lt:'•lllEn (L,\ST, t lllSr ;\ll DDLE INITlr\L)	(;Jt,\Ot:	,\ f N/SSAN
(b) (6)	(b) (6)

TY PE GEN	I	l'ER!SO 'A L APPEARANC E	x	I	Rt..CORO HEVlt..W
C:O  SU.	'\\II ore()\ "f I  "I) OR ORC "I/ TIO\	IODRr\\ "DOR ORG "l/\110\ Ot (01 "rt
HS	'•
x
\ OTE Of Tll E BOARD
\IE\IBER SITTI  G	llON	GFN	LO 11K'	OTllER	DEN\
(b)(6)	x
i-
x

x

i-

x

i-

x

i-

I SSl I'S	A94.05	l\Of\  '-1 \IOtR	A67.10	t.XlllKI I s SIJn"nTt:O TO Tll £ BOARD
I  ORDl R Al'POIN r ING I Ill·BOARD
2	\PPI I('A 1 10\J IOR RI \ II W OF DISC'llARGE
3	l 1 1 I f R 01 NOi 11 1(' \ I ION
4  BRll I 01 Pl RSONM l  H I I
COl   SI l  S RI l l  \SI   ro 1111 BO·\RD
I-
\l>Dl 1 10\J \l I \1111111 S St Bi\111 11 D \11 IME OF
l'I K'>O.'I \I  Wl'I · It\'-l I
I WI  RI CORDl'\(1 01 l'I RSO \I \PPb\R.\NCE Ill: \Rl'\G

tit \Rl\C I)\ rt	( \\l \I \IBI R

25 l\lar 2015	FD-20 l-t-00758
APPll(A'-T <, l\\I [A'-1> 1111 ll<MRD:. DI flSl(,' Al RArl<l'.   LI ARE" Dl'CI SD>O\ THE ATTAO'EO AIR ftlR('l DIS< llARGI. RI\' I "ltlAFD DH IS'1,.\I. RATIO\AU:.

Case heard in Wash ington, D.C.

Advise appl icant of the decision of the I3oard, the right to a persona l appearance wi tlllwithout  counsel, and the right to subm it an
appl ication to t he A FDC M R.

(b) (6)

1    00RSHIE1ff	0A1 E: "'1712015
TO	1110\1
S \I  IRBR	,,(RI I \R\ Of- Tift   \IR tOR( lrcru,o''CI COl'(11.
\IR t OR( t DI\( II \R(,t Rt \ 1£\\ BO \RD
550 ( \ JIU 1 1 \\ l \ l, \lll l  IO	lJ ( 0\1\1 \'0 OR. tt \\ l'C•. _\ RO f l OOR
R\t\ O<>l Pl l \I B. I \ - 1 50-17-1	\\ DIH \\\  \tB.'ID 1'7>?·"00 1

AFIIQ FOni\ I 0-2077, JA    00	(EF-V2)	Previou;,

AIR FORCE  DISCHARGE REVIEW BOA RD DECISIONA L RATIONALE	CASE NLl:\IBER

FD-20 14-00758	

GEN ERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

The applicant was offered a persona l 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 ins ava i lable perti nent data on the applicant and the factors lead ing to the discharge.

FINDING :  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE: The applicant recei ved a General discharge for Misconduct - Minor Discipli nary Infractions

The Air Force Discharge Review Board , under its responsi bi l ity 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 wan-anted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regula1ity in the conduct  of govermnenta l affairs unless there is substantial cred ible evidence to rebut  the  presumption,  to  i ncl 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 ensu re the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The appl icant"s record of service included two Article 1Ss, two Letters of Repri mand  and  two Letters of Counseling. His misconduct i ncl uded communicati ng raciall y offensi ve language to a co-worker; failure to go (2x); with i n ten t to deceive made a false official statement; failure to go on t ime (2x);  and inability to remain accountable duri ng duty hou rs.

The applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable due to the discharge bei ng based on minor
infractions of his 45 months of service.  The Board  found that the applicant"s m isconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of a ll mil itary members. The Board also found that the negat ive aspects of the applicant's service outvveighcd  the positive contributions he made i n his Air Force career.   The characterization  of the discharge recei ved by the applican t has been determ ined to be appropriate.

A discharge i s upgraded only if the applicant and the Board can establ ish that an ineq ui ty or i mpropriety took place at the time of discharge.  After a thorough review of the record , the Board found no evidence to justify an u pgrade of the discharge characterization, reason for the discharge or the reenlistment code.

CONCLUSION : The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was  consistent  with  the procedura l and substantive req uirements of the discharge regulation , was withi n  the d iscretion of the discharge authori ty, and that the appl icant was provided  full administrati ve due process .

I n view of the foregoi ng find ings, the Board fu11her concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of d ischarge and determi nes the discharge should  rema i n unchanged.

Attachment:
Examin er's Brief