AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAMt OF SERVICE MEMBER (LA T, FIRSl' MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b)(6)	GRADE	
TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL APPEARA   CE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW	
COl.'NSEL	NA!I E or COll:O.SEL ""' DOR ORCA. IZUIOS	ADORE    A'. D OR ORCA.  7.ATI0:-0 OFCOIJ);SEL	
YES	No			
	x			

MEMBER SITTING	VOTE OFTHE BOARD	
	llON	Gr:N	UOTllC	OTHER	DENY	
(b)(6)						x	
						x	
						x	
						x	
						x	
ISSUES	AOl.01	INUt..X NUJ\18tK
A67.30
A52.00	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO TH£ BOARD	
		l	ORDl:.R APPOIN I ING Tlll:. BOARD	
		2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION	
		4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
			COUNSEL'S RELEASE TOTHE BOARD	
			ADDITION AL EXlllBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERS01'ALAPPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORD!'G OF PERSO  AL APPl:ARANCE HEARING	
llCARJ>rC DATE

09 Jul 2015	CASE NllBlR

FD-2015-00104			
APl'l.ICANf'SISSl;'EAN01Ht llO'JW Dl:CISkJNAI. RAllQ!\Al.t;ARt.DfSCUSSED  CNTHEAITAO!EDAIR  fORCE OOCHM<.o• R1'.Vlt"' l:IOAIW tlt:l;.l)IOl'>AI. AATIONALE.	
Case heard in Washington , D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/withou t counsel, and the right to subm it an application to the AFBCMR.

(b)(6)	--
--	
	
TO:
SAF/MRBR
SSO C STREEl' WE T, UITE 40 RANDOLPll AFB, TX 78150-4742	fROI:
tCIU'TARV or Tiit. AIR f"ORC£ PERO.SS-EL COUCIL
AIR t'ORCE DISCHARGE RE\ 1£\\ BOARD 1$.lS COl\IA.'10 DR.££ V. INC. JRO FU>OR A. DRt\\'S AFB, MD 20767001	
AFHQ FORM 0-2077,JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE :-.L'\IBER

FD-2015-00104	

GEN ERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable and to change the reason for the discharge.

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 contai ns available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDI NG: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge and to change of reason for the discharge.

ISSUE: The applicant recei ved a General discha rge for Com mission of Serious Offense- Sexual Perversion

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under i ts responsi bility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the characterization of service and the  reason  for discharge  i f such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the cond uct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credibl e 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 pert inent standards of equity and propriety. The applican t's record of service included a Special Court Martial conviction  for  wrongfu lly engaging in sexual contact wi th an Airman wi thout her permission.

The member contends that his discharge was inequi table because i t was based on one incident  that happened in his 9 years of service.  The applicant stated that he would  have fought the discharge action but decided to go ahead with the volunteer separation because he would have been separated  under the Air Force roll back program  anyway. The member's discharge was legall y sufficient   per AFI 36-3208 para  5.52. 1, i t states
''Airmen are subject to discharge for misconduct based on acts of aberrant sexual behavior or acts of sexual misconduct.'' The OR B also found that the negati ve aspects of the willful miscond uct outweighed the
positive aspects of the appl icant's performa nce and concluded that the discharge was appropriate.

A discharge is upgraded  only i f the applicant and the Board can establish that an inequi ty or impropriety took  place at the time of discharge.   After a thorough  review of the records, the Board found no evidence to warrant  an upgrade of the discharge characteri zation.

CONCLUSION: The Di charge  Review  Board  concludes  that  the  discharge  was  consistent  wi th  the proced ural   and  substant ive  requirements  of  the  d ischarge  regulation ,  was  within   t he  discretion  of  the d ischarge authority, and that the appl icant was provided  fu l l administrative due process.

I n view of the foregoing find ings, the Board  further concl udes that there exists no legal or equ itable basis for upgrade of discharge and  determi nes the discharge should  remai n unchanged.

Attach ment: Examiner's Brief