AIR FORCE DISCHARG E 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	

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

30 Mar 2016	FD-2015-00524

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.

#Narrative Reason
@ RE Code

(b) (6)

-FR0}1:

TO:

INDORSEMENT

DATE: 04/06/2016

	ANDREWS AFB. MO ?0762-7001
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00524	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization to Honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

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 to Honorable. However, the Board grants an upgrade of discharge to Under Honorable Conditions General. The change of reason and authority for discharge, and change the reenlistment code are denied.

ISSUE: The applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge - Chapter 4, Request of Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court Martial.

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 one Chapter 4 Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court Martial.

The applicant contends the discharge was improper because he had inadequate counsel. He claims that his Military Counsel did not properly explain the Chapter 4 process and ramifications. The Board notes that the applicant requested a Chapter 4 in February 2009 by reviewing and signing the Chapter 4. With that, an approved Chapter 4/UOTHC discharge is issued, not accepted by the service member. The Board found no evidence in the record or information submitted by the applicant that substantiates his claim of impropriety.

The applicant also contends the discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He claims that the government breached on an oral contract between his counsel and the Wing's Judge Advocates office, and the decision-making power of his squadron commander was illegally overridden by legal office and wing commander. After a thorough review of the record and the information supplied by the applicant, the ORB determined there is sufficient evidence to support his claim of inequity. Based upon the overall duty performance, compelling statements from his counsel and club management, the Board grants upgrade of discharge to Under Honorable Conditions General.

The Board highly recommends that if the applicant can provide additional documented information to substantiate his issue(s), that he should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board. If the applicant chooses to exercise this right, he should be prepared to provide the ORB with factual evidence  of  the  inequity/impropriety   and  any  exemplary  post-service  accomplishments  as  well  as  any	
contributions to the community.

CONCLUSION:	The  Discharge  Review  Board  concludes  that  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the	

discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by a discharge Under Honorable Conditions General.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief