AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b)(6)	GRADE	
TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW	
'	NAME OFCOUNSEL AND OR ORCANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORCANIZATION Of COU1'SEL	
YES	No			
	x			

MEMBER SITTING	VOTE OF TIIE BOARD	
	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
(b)(6)						x	
						x	
						x	
						x	
						x	
IS.SUES	A93.0l	INDEX NUMBER	A67.10	EXHIBn'SSUBMllTEDTOTHE  BOARD	
		1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
		2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION	
		4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
			COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
			ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING	
30 Mar 20-16  ....,.
H&ARINC DATE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015 00463			
Ml!Ql!lt"l!l ..>tlll	Tl'AUID-	110iW>l)llOSIOIW.U1:X!NALE.	
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)	'	
:	-	--	'"
TO:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST,SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	,	ul\TJ;:  VtilZUlu	 	
FROM:
SECllETARV or THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE R.EVIEW BOARD IS35COMMAND DR. EE WJNC, lRDFLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001	
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00463	

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 upgrade of 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 - 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 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 include four Letters of Reprimand. His misconduct included failing to maintain vehicle insurance and vehicle registration, failing dormitory room inspection, assaulting a USMC veteran and arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol.

The applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was unfair and biased.  He does not  think that his misconduct warranted a General discharge.  However, the applicant did not provide any evidence to support that his discharge was improper or inequitable.  The DRB opined that through the administrative actions taken, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  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