AI R FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD H EARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEM BER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b)(6)
TYPE BCD	I	PERSONAL   APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNStL	NAME OF COUNSE.L ANO OR ORGANLZAT IOS	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTF.OFTHE BOARD
M EM BER SITTI NG	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OT!i.ER	DENY
(b)(6)	x
-
x
-
x
-
x
-
x
ISSUES	A94.0S	INDEX NlfM BER	A68.00	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED 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
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBM ITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

26 Jun 2015	FD·2015-00053
APPl.ICANT'S ISSUEAND l1iE BOAAD'SDECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON 1llEATTACHED AIR FORCE DlSCHARG6 REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.
I

Case heard in Washington, 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 application to the AFBCMR.

(b)(6)

INDORSEMENT	DATE: 7/1412015
TO:	FROM:

SAffMRBR

Sl!CRE'l"ARY OFTHE AIR FORCE rERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1!5JS COMJdAND  DR, EE WINC.  JRD  l"LOOR
RANDOLPH AFB. TX 781504742	ANDREWS AFB. MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00053	

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

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 Bad Conduct Discharge for Misconduct - Special Court Martial

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. In order to adhere to Mental Health Amendments to 10 USC 1553, a physician with specialized training on mental health disorders was present for this board. The applicant's record of service included one Special Court Martial with two charges including specifications of conspiring to commit larceny  of insurance proceeds with a local national and stealing insurance proceeds from USAA insurance.

The applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  He stated that his discharge was based off of one bad decision within his eight years of otherwise honorable service.  After review of the records, the Board found that because the applicant did not receive an administrative discharge, his contention of inequity is not applicable.  The applicant received a Bad Conduct Discharge, a punitive discharge, as part of his sentence resulting from a Special Court-Martial conviction. Under the provisions of Section 1553, 10 USC, the only basis for a change of a Bad Conduct discharge is clemency. The applicant presented evidence which the DRB opined did not warrant granting clemency.

The Discharge Review Board concluded that the applicant's punitive discharge by Special Court-Martial is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case and there is insufficient basis, as an act of clemency, for change of discharge.

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