AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMB ER (LAST, FIRST Ml ODLE INlTIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)
TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANC E	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COVNS£l.	NAME OF COUNSEL A.'ID OR ORGA,'llL\TION	ADDRESS A.'ID OR ORCANIL\TION OFCOUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
x x x x

ISSUES

A94.55

IN1)£X NUM-8£

A67.90

EXHIBITS SUBMITTEDTO 1llEBOARD
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
ADD!TIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARJNG DATE	CASE NUMBER

13 Jul 2015	FD-2015-00115
APPLICANT"S ISSUE ANDTIIEBOARD"S DECISKlNALRATIONALE ARll DISCUSSED ON nu;ATTACHED AIR FORC6DISCllARGSREVIEW OOMD DECISIONAL. RATIONALS.

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)

·TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY OFTHE AI R FORCE PERSONN EL COUNCii..
AIR f'ORCE DISCHARGE ReVJEW SOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SU ITE 40	1535 coo OR. tE WING.3RO PLOOR
RANDOLPH    AFB, TX  781504742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00115	

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

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 conta ins available pertinent data on the appl icant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDI N G: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE: The appl icant recei ved a General discharge for M iscond uct - Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under its responsi bility to examine the propriety and equity of an appl ican t'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  presu mes  regularity  in  the  conduct  of govern mental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumpt ion, 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 pe1tinent standards of equity and propriety. The applicant's record of service included one Article 15 for having a female in his dorm during restricted hours and making false statement about his location. He also recei ved four Letters of Repri mand for fai l ing to properly adhere to technical order procedures (2x), failing to report two members who he knew were drink ing while underage and reckless driving: ignoring a vi ual and/or audible signal to stop and one Letter of Counseli ng for fa i lure to repo1t on time.

The applican t cited his desire to recei ve the G.I. Bill benefi ts asjusti fication for upgrade. The DRB noted  that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on February 13, 2009) that he u nderstood he must recei ve an Honorable discharge to recei ve future educational entitlements. The Board was sympathetic to the im pact from the loss of these benefits to the applicant; however, this is not a matter of inequi ty or impropriety which would warran t an upgrade.

A d ischarge is u pgraded only if the applicant and the Board can establ ish that an inequ i ty or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  After a thorough  review of the record, the Board found no evidence to just ify an upgrade of the discharge characterization.

CO CLUSI ON: The Discharge Review  Board  concludes  that  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the proced ura l and ubstanti ve requ irements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion  of  the discharge authority, and that the appl icant was provided  full administrat ive due process.

In view of the foregoing find ings, the Board fu1ther conclude  that there exists no legal or equi table basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remai n unchanged.

Attachment: Exami ner's Brief

.