AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b)(6)
TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL APPEARA NCE	x	I	RECORD REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OPCOUNSEL AND OR ORGAA'l2Anos	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZt\TION OFCOUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OF ffiE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b)(6)	x
x

x
x
x
ISSl>"ES	A94.SS	INJ>f.X NUMBll	A67.10	EXHIBITS SUBMnTEDTO THI: BOARD
1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3  LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL' S RELFASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEAR.ING

HEAIUNG DAT[	CASE N\iMBER

22 Jun 2016	FD-2015-00376
APPUCANrS ISSUE AND THEllO.U.O 5 DECISIONAL lt.ATIONALE AllE DISCUSSED OTllf:A1TACHED AIR FORCE DISCHAR0£ JUMEW BOAlID DECSIONAL It.A110NALS.

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)

-	-	--

'-	INDORSEMENT	DATE: 7/1
TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY OF ntt AlR FORCE P£RSONNn. COUNOL
AIR FORCI! OISCllARGE REVIEW BOARD
SSO C STREET WEST,SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR. El!Wll'IC. JRD n.QOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	AHDR£WS AFB. MD J016J..MI

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00376

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) 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 was discharged for Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions with service characterized as Under Honorable Conditions (UHC) (General). 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, and one Vacation of Suspended Nojudicial  Punishment.  His misconduct included failing to go on several occasions at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty and wrongful appropriation of cash of a value of $500.00 or less.

The applicant states that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 36 months of service.  The ORB recognized that the applicant had served three years before the discharge was initiated, but concluded that the applicant's misconduct outweighed the positi ve aspects of his time in the Air Force.  The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.  The Board also did not find evidence of any mental health issues that impacted the discharge.   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 the discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief