AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOA RD H EAR ING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST. FIRST MIDDLE INITlAL)	GRADE
(b)(6)
TYPE GEN	I	PERSON AL  APPEARAN CE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW
COUNSEL	NA\1E OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANl7..TION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANl7.ATION Of COUNSE
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER    SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b)(6)	x
x x
x x
ISSUES	A94.0S	INDEX N UMBER	A67. J O	EXHIBITSSUBM ITTED TO THE BOARD
I ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3  LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4  BRIEF OF PERSONN EL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITION AL EXH IBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

H F.ARl. C l)ATE	CASE NMBER

07 May 2015	FD-2015-00048
APPLICANT'S ISSUE ANO THE BOARD'S DECISIONAi. RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON 1llEATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard in Wash ington, D.C.

Advise appl icant 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 AFBCM R.

(b)(6)

INOORSEMENT

.....

DATE: 6110/2015	 	

TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY or THE AIR FORCE: PERSON l<£1,. COOSCIL
A IR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	I COl\t)tANO OR, EE WING, JflJ) f"l..OOR
RANDOLPH AFB. TX 78150-4742	ANORtWSAfB.MD 2076   -7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JA    00	(EF-Y2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00048	

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. The applicant's record of service included two Article 15s, two Letters of Reprimand , and one Letter of Counseling. His misconduct  included failure to go on time (4x), falling asleep in class (2x), failure of block two test and failure to obey a lawful order.

The applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The applicant also stated that the nature of his infractions did not warrant a General discharge.  After review of the records the DRB opined that through the administrative actions taken, the applicant had opportunities to change his negative behavior.  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 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.

Inview 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