AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAE OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b)(6)
TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL APPEARAN CE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
CO'lJNSlL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGAN17.ATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGASIZATIOSOFCOllSSEL
Y!S	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTllC	OTHER	DENY
(b)(6)	x
....
x
....
x
....
x
....
x
ISSUES	A94.05	INDEX NUMBER	A67.10	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TOTHE BOARD
A94.49	1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	 	
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LE'ITER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRlEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL' S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBffS SUBMITTED AT TlME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

KEARINC DATii	CASE NUMBER

22 Jun 2016	FD-2015-00260
Al'PUCANT'S ISSUEANDntE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONALEAllE DISCUSSED ONnlE ATTAOIED AIR FOtlCEDISCHARGE 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/without counsel, and the right to submit an application  to the AFBCMR.

(b)(6)

7	INDORSEMENT	DATE: 6127/lOJ(	J
TO:	FROM:
SAFIMRBR	SECR.tTARY Of nttl AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNC1L
AIR FOl!CE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 CSTREET WEST, SUITE 40	15J5 COMMAND DR. t:I WING, JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 20761-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00260	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization 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.

Pursuant to 10 USC 1553 this board included a member who is a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with training on mental health issues connected with post traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury and/or special training on mental health disorders.

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

FINDING: The Board finds insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant's discharge.

DISCUSSION : 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 governn1ental 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 Jed 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, three Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of Admonishment, and two Letters of Counseling. His misconduct included failing to go to mandatory  Fitness Improvement Program, failing to obey an order (2x), displaying insubordinate conduct  towards an Noncomissioned Officer, assault and disorderly conduct, drunkenness, unacceptable conduct, and failing to meet dress and appearance standards.

The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The applicant also cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. The ORB noted the applicant had served four years before the discharge was initiated, but concluded that the applicant's misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of his time in the Air Force. The Board is aware that the applicant's present service characterization renders him ineligible for Department of Veteran Affairs education benefits; however, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade. The Board considered whether there were mental health issues that may have caused an inequity or impropriety in the applicant's discharge, but found none based on the available evidence. A discharge is upgraded only if it is established that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.

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