AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEIBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b)(6)
TYPE GEN	I	PERSO N AL APPEARAN CE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
NAM& Of COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORCA;'ll2ATION or COUNSEL

I x
MEMBER SITTING

1 ,,.,	-   *·;f.>4l:;,"°..·i,	;f.,\:"

:i.1:;    :.;. 1        ..-•., ..	•  r..;..;,wt:."•''"' ....l":"l,...,...,,._.Y.'":  ·   ·...; ?u{..-:.11..l:  •;t : .< •.. .'·.,.	...
HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

(b)(6)	x
x x x
x

ISSUES	A94.53	INDEX NUMBCR	A67.10	.- ·· - ,. " ,

.. .

. -

. i-: ·;iA	i- 1

.. 't;\J;.  .•

1	ORDER APPOINTIN G THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FTLE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIMEOF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING Of PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARIN G DATE	CASE NUMBER

-

-

19 May 2015	FD-2015-00128

.

. -.

·r-;

•

•

.,.

·":'·

"·""

''j-'

-'f "·

• •

.	-.-

...-  .  t:·i-··- ......	J _.	..---·---- "	-

·•._,:

4'

(J ,...·"' '

··-...- •·

..

:	"'    •P._ ..	-

.1,...  ·	.

·-·':11-;f .).	Q·l·

-	,•

-,.-- ·
..

- ·'l!j ·--,...

.-......:...1h ':1- 1_.: ... t..no.::..,.·: ,,...:•• . ..1.:- 'i• . · : ·,,....  ...·   :.:!W' ."i. ...  ""..:.:•.::.. ;. '":	t,:. .s.-:;ir,..	L,;	-&_	i-t$:;..	..tt!: ..	<
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 submit an application to the AFBCMR.

(b)(6)

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST,SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OFnfE MR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AlR FORCE DISCHARGE R.EYl l!W BOARD
15'5 COMMAND DR. EE WINC,lRD FLOOR
MDREWS AFB,MD 21m2-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00128	
GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change the reason and authority for discharge and to change the reenlistment code.

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 one Article 15, one Vacation of Non-Judicial punishment, three Letters of Reprimand and three Letters of Counseling. His misconduct included failing to report at the time prescribed to an appointed place of duty; negligently failing to refrain from sleeping while on duty; failing to report to commander's office at the prescribed time for disciplinary action; failing to report to flight's mandatory fitness session; being derelict in the performance of duties and failing to report to duty on time.

Applicant contended that since he did not elect to separate under the Force Shaping program during FYl 1, he was forced to separate due to having an Article 15. The Board determined applicant's contention was without merit. The Force shaping program is a selective rather than automatically inclusive process and applicant was administratively separated rather than "forced" to separate. The Board determined that based on the presumption of regularity (i.e., the commander and JAG personnel's expertise and decision making based on the entirety of facts), that the member's misconduct was not based on only receiving an Article 15 as evidenced by the reason for discharge annotated in the Notification for discharge dated December 5, 2011, para. 2. The record shows that he had several incidents of misconduct. The DRB opined that through the administrative actions used, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. 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, reason for the discharge or the reenlistment code.

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