,--·------- ---	---··..-  ··--·- ------ ----	-- ----	-	·-  ·--
AI R  FOIKE DISCllARGE RE\.JE\\  BOARD  llE .\Rll\ G RECORD

",\ '.\If. () '>t°R\ 1n \H \llH H !I.A!'- I'. -ll{S r \111)1)1 •• l'ilTl.\I.)	GR \Ill.
(b)(6)

,._
T\ Pf. GE:-0

----

x J_	P

ER SO"i

\ L ,\PN .\R.\CI::

-.	-

I	RJ<.CORD Rt:V U.:\\-

--	-	---

-	-	-

._,

  COUNl!CL	\\\U 0..< 01 \\ll \'00tt f)N(,\'\l/\1H>'	\OOtO'' \'U Olt OM< \'II \ 110'Ot C OC''t I
\	I  '

- Lx _ . 	

--	von;

Of 111£ BOARD

 	\l['.\1Bl::R SITTl:\ G			·- ·- ..	- I - •4•     -	- - -----

--	--	-	-

110'1;

·- . (,( --·

I)Il(	01111 f(	l>ENY

(b)(6)	X •
-	- - -- '--	----
X •
,._	-	-	-.	_ ----
x-
,._	---	--
:\;

A60.00

lIU \ "l\11t M.

>-	------	--	-	--- -

l!'-

I •'

AIJ4.5!'

- -- -	-- -------- --- --- -X •  -

-

EXIUBITh SUBMnTt:D TO TlfE BOAllD
-

A9.i.o

, I ..0..1(()) I<  \Pl'Ol'1;!l'I • 1111  lllJ'\IU>
J Wl'I IC \110"I O-K RI \-11 \ OF l)lC'll ·\KC of·	-
-J   II Il l R OI "Ol 11 1( \lit)-' ------
4   Ul<lll  OI  l'l l<!'>0'-' 1 1 1-ll I

---+'""'"""''""""''""'"""" 	

Ul-l·  I I .,Kl I    \'>I   111 I Ill  110 \Im

-

-	.	-·	--r-C\'t	------ ---·

l'I K!'-C IN \I \l'I' \K \ '-C I

11\11 OI
-- -	-

llt_\jiCI\(.

(_)\ It

I \l'I  Kl ((>1<1>1'-u Ill  l'I K"O'- \I \l'l'I\K \'Kl II•\Rl'\lJ

04  Mu  2016	I ..-0.20 15-011155	i
APfUCA.'IT'S !Ml'!:' M'DTH£80AJUTS DU'\Sl(l'.Al llATIO'>AU' ARE DISCUSSED CJ" THE ATTA0161)AlllFoaC'EDISOIAMIE  IUMl!WllOAAD DllCIMt"-AL MflOl<ALI;.

Case heard in Wash ington. D.C'.

Advise appl ican t of the dt.'.C1siun of th l3oard. the right 10 a pcr!>onal appeani111.:c with ' ithout counsel, and rhe right to submit an applkat ion to 1hc A FBCVIR .

I

·01 \'\;GI-. Rlc -\\0'\ ,\'\D,\l lllOR lfY 10 I-( Rl-.f \RL\l. \l TllORI I'i
l(b) (6)

10.

'\I \!Kiii<
,'41 <  \ 11<1 I  1  \q 'I \l 111 -i'•

l\OORSE\tE:\T	DATE: S'6/ltl

_J

I f.NO\t
,.C IU I\M.\ Ot tilt \IM tOtU I rtk\0'"t (0\   < II
\1R tt·wc t Ul"H \Jtt.• Mt\ lt \\ 10\IU)
I"''0\1\l\\l>DM .tl \l,t.,, llUHOOR

I\ \:-.llc.ll l'l l 'I II  I .\ -,t •>·r:	I

\
\'0Mt\\' OK.\1Uit •!· 'Uil

L__

_	lI .

AFllQ FOR:'\I 0-2077•.I \'\ 00	(I·I-\  I	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00155	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization to Honorable and to change the reason and authority for the discharge.

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 grants the request to upgrade the discharge characterization to Honorable and to change the reason and authority for discharge to Secretarial Authority.

ISSUE: The applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct - Commission of a Serious Offense

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 a Special Court-Martial conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and one Letter of Reprimand for allowing an underage airman to consume alcohol in his dorm room.

The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant pled guilty and was found guilty of DUI at a Special Court-Martial.  His sentence included reduction in rank to Airman, forfeiture of $750.00 pay per month for two months, and a reprimand.  After a review of the record, it was found that the Military Judge commented at trial that Air Force members typically receive Nonjudicial Punishment for first-time DUI offenses and that there appeared to be no aggravating circumstances involved with the applicant's DUI that warranted criminal prosecution instead of Nonjudicial Punishment.  While the DRB did not condone the applicant's misconduct, it determined that his federal conviction and involuntary separation for this first-time DUI offense was inconsistent with Air Force standards of discipline and therefore inequitable.

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 that the evidence provided justified an upgrade of the discharge characterization and a change to the reason for the discharge.	
CONCLUSION:  The  Discharge  Review  Board  concludes  that  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief