AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEM8tl<(l,ASl', FIKST MIDDLEINITIAL)

(b) (6)

·-		- - ----  ..

GRA DE

TYPE GEN

I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x I	RECORD  REVIEW

-·_c_o,u,m, L -- "4"1[orcousa. •llOk OllGA..U.ATION
Yts	Nt
x

VOTI Of<TllE BOARD

(b) (6)

ISSVt:S	A94.55

MEMBER Sfrl'ING

A92 .27

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OrHER

DENY

x x x
x
x

HUMINC OA1'£

27 Apr 2016	FD-20 J 5-00438

I    OROl'R APPOINTING THE BOARD
2   APPL!( ATION FOR REVIEW OF OISCHARtlt
3 LETTEROF NOTIFICA flON
4  BRIEPOF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S Rf.U!ASI: TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL t-:XIlllJITS SU6MfTfEO AT rlMt 01- PERSONAL APPf.i\RANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

Case heard  in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/wi thout counsel. and the right to submit an application to the AFDCMR.

(b) (6)

5SOC' STREEI WEST. SUffE 40

INDORSEMENT_[_o..

DAT£: 4fllll8J6

fUR('F. DISC llARCI': RC\'I E"- BOA.RO

SAf/MRBR

RANDOLPH AFB.TX 781 50-4742

l<'Rl"l'AIY OF THE 41R rott("[ PUSONNrt  C"Oll'K"I L
All
ISJ C0...'1ANO Oil,EE WINC. JAD FLOOll
A1'0AU•'!IAfll.MO l-1MI

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

Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00438	

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.

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

FINDING:  The Board denies the request to upgrade the discharge characterization.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE: The applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct - Civilian Conviction

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 Letter of Reprimand. His misconduct included failing to obey a lawful general order and violating Japanese law by driving under the influence of alcohol.

The applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident.  The applicant feels that three years of honorable service, fully cooperating, and being completely honest and up front warrants an upgrade to his discharge characterization.  After a thorough review of the record, the Board found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of inequity. The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career.  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.

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