AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST.FlRSf MIDDLE I ITIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)

TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADORt:SSAND OR ORGANIZATION OPCO NSEL
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 NUMBER	A67.30	EXHIBITS SUllMIITED TO THE BOARD
1  ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER  OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRLEF OF PERSONNEL FLLE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXJ-ILBITS SUBMITTED AT Tli\1E OF PERSON AL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARJNG

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

13 Jul 2015	FD-2015-00203
APPLICANT'SISSUE AND 1liEBOARD"S DECISIONAi. RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON 11IE AITACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

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)

INDORSEMENT	DATE:  8/512015

SAF/MRBR	or

TO:	FROM:
StCRETl\RY	THE Al R FORCE PERSONNEL CO!L CIL
AJK Jo ORC£  OISCHAl<Gt: ttt:Ylt:W  BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	153S COMMAND OR, EE WING,JRO LOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	A,•l)RJ:;WSAFB, MOW76! 7001

AFHQ FORJ'\1 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00203	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

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 -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 charge I, failure to obey an order from the commander by wrongfully being within 500 feet of his wife and child; charge II, signing an official statement in which the statement was false. He also had misconduct that included failure to go to duty on time; willfully leaving a firearm and ammunition in his POV while parked in his duty section; reporting late for duty; unlawfully striking his wife with his hands; withdrawing  unauthorized  cash from GTC (2x); and being apprehended by security forces for domestic disturbance at his residence on base.

The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits asjustification for upgrade. The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on October 16, 2006) that he understood he must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements. The Board was sympathetic to the impact from the loss of these benefits to the applicant; however, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

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.

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