AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE LMTIAL)	GRADE

(b) (6)
TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL   APPEARA NCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW
COUNS&L	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS ANO OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
Y£S	No
x
VOTE OFTHE BOARD
MEMBER    SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTl-IC	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
x

x
x
x
ISSUES	A03.07	INDt:.X Nl.MBER	A67.l0	EXHlBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
I ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETIER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TCME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANC E HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

03  Mar  2016	FD-2015-00510
APPLICANTS ISSUEAND THE BOARD'S DECISK>NAL AATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON UtE ATTAC'HED AIR fORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW 80ARD DECISIONAI.. 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)

-FR0}1:

TO:

INDORSEMENT

.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00510	
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 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 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 two Article 15s, and one Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment. His misconduct included failing to go to place of duty on time (2x), leaving the place of duty without authority, and disobeying orders given by a Noncommission Officer.

The applicant cited his desire to receive an Honorable discharge and the ability to use his G.I. Bill benefits. The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on December 9, 2011) that he understood he must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements.  The Board is aware that the present service characterization renders the applicant ineligible for these benefits; however, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

The applicant also claims that his misconduct may have been fueled by his long history of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) diagnosis. After a thorough review of the record, the Board found no indication that any mental health (ADHD) issues had an impact on the applicant's misconduct or on his discharge.  Additionally, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization.

A discharge is upgraded only if it is established 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