AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)
TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZAT ION	ADORESS ANO OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
x x x x
ISSUES	A94.53	INDEX NUM.BtR	A67.10	EXHIBITS  SUBMITTED TO  THE BOARD
1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVlEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITIED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OFPERSONAL APPEARANCE  HEARING

HEARING llATE	CASt NU:l1BER

09 Jul 2015	FD-2015-00118
APPLCANT·s ISSUE ANDTHE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONl\l.E ARE DISCUSSED ON 11lEATTACFIEDAIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DllClSIONAL RATIONALE.

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)

-...·-- -...-·.....,,r<o .	.-

.........

. ;U _..,.---y--a-	 	

TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY OFTl-IE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCii..
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REV!EW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1$35 COl\U\1.AJ'fD DR, ££ WING, JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH  AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB.MD!0762 7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARG E R EVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NIJ;\ BER

FD-20 IS-00118	

GEN ERAL: The appl ican t appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

The applicant was offered a persona l appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) but declined and req uests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors lead ing to the discharge.

FIN DING:  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE:  The applicant  recei ved a General discharge for Misconduct -Minor Disci pl inary Infractions

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under i ts responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the characteri zation of service and the reason  for discharge  if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges,  the  Board  presumes  regulari ty  in  the  conduct  of govern mental affairs unless there is substantial cred i ble evidence to rebut  the  presumption,  to  incl 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 ensure the discharge met the perti nent standards of equity and propriety. The applicant's record of service i ncl uded seven Letters of Reprimand for  failing to show for mandatory M-1 6 trai ning, a l tering an Ainnari's official PT test score, failing to show for mandatory med ical appointment, downloading unauthori zed software onto a government computer,  fail ing to  show  up  to  work on time, and failing to go at t he prescribed time to his WAPS Testing; five Letters of Counseling for fai l ing to obey a lawful order to not use an electronic device while perfom1ing escort duties, failing to  report  to designated place of duty, fai ling to show for mandatory augmentee traini ng,  tell ing  co-workers  that  he smoked marijuana on leave and an investigation showed that he  made  the story  up  to  sound  ·'cool", and failing to perfonn  PT duties by not completi ng the exercises.

The member stated he was told his discharge would automatically be upgraded after a certain amoun t of t ime.  The mem ber also cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bi ll benefits as justification  for upgrad e.  The OR B noted that when the appl icant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on Ju ne 5, 2009) that he understood  he m ust receive an Honorable discharge to recei ve futu re educational entitlemen ts.  The Boa rd also noted the issue in regards to the automatic upgrade was common result of miscomm unication, at the t ime of discharge, when the applicant  is briefed that thei r discharge wi ll automaticall y be upgraded after six months.   While a d i  charge may be upgraded  after six months, the
upgrade is by no means automat ic. A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the Board can establ ish that an ineq ui ty or impropriety took place at the time of discharge. The Board wa sympathetic to the impact from the loss of these benefi ts to the appl icant; however, this is not a matter of inequ i ty or impropriety wh ich woul d warrant an upgrade.

CONCLUSION: The Discha rge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent wi th the proced ural and substanti ve req u irements of the discharge regulation, was wi thi n the discretion of the discharge authori ty, and that the appl icant 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 determi nes the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attach ment: Exami ner's B1ief