AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE
2017-03-19	CASE NUMBER FD-2015- 00519	
TYPE GENERAL	X	PERSONAL APPEARANCE		NON-PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL	
Yes	No			
	
X			
MEMBER SITTING	VOTE OF THE BOARD	
	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
(b) (6)	X					
(b) (6)					X	
(b) (6)					X	
(b) (6)	X					
(b) (6)					X	
(b) (6)						
ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD	
		1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
		2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LETTER 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	
APPLICANT’S ISSUE AND THE BOARD’S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE 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)

SIGNATURE OF BOARD PRESIDENT	DATE: 5/26/2017	
TO:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	FROM:
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001	
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00519	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Joint Base Andrews, MD, on 16 Feb 2017.

**No additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing.

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

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

DISCUSSION: 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 applicant’s record of service included: one Article 15, one Letter of Reprimand; two Letters of Counseling. Her misconduct included Leaving the local area without being on leave status; unlawfully grabbing a service member by his face and neck, squeezing his neck, scratching his face, and pushing him with your hands; failing to operate government vehicle in a safe manner; issuing passes without proper approval; reporting late for work.

The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to determine if the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct - Minor Infractions. The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because other Air Force members within her unit received lighter punishments for the same infractions, and that there was no legal counsel on the base. The applicant contends that the discharge was improper because initiating commander did not consider the Probation and Rehabilitation (P&R) option outlined in AFI 36-3208 Chap 7, and that the four minor infractions over the course of three years did not constitute a pattern of misconduct. The DRB reviewed the supporting documentation provided by the applicant and determined that the examples of punishment within the unit were not based in fact and did not show a precedence. The DRB also determined that there is no requirement for legal counsel on a base, just that a member has access to legal counsel. After review of the discharge package, the DRB majority found that the Commander documented consideration and denial of P&R. The Board majority concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

After a thorough review of the record, the Board majority found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board majority 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