AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OFSERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)
TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL APPEARAN CE	x	l	RECORD REVIEW 	
NAME OFCO\JNSEL AND OR ORCANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORCANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

YES	)lo
x

VOTE OFTIIE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

(b) (6)	x
.....
x
>-
-	x
x
>-
x

1

AOl.26

·-·	. .	.- .

ISSUES	AOl.31	I NDF.X NUMBER	A67.90		E XHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THI BOARD ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3  LETTER OF NOTIFJCATION
4  BRTEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDIT!ONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

-	...	-

TAPE RECORDlNG  OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HVJUNC  DAT£	CASE NUMBER

30 Mar 2016	FD-2015-00526
a.a--.
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:	FROM:

DATE:  4/6/2016

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY OF TH£ AIR fORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISOIARGE REVI EW BOARD

550 C STREET WEST,SUITE 40

1535 COMMAND DR,££ WING, >RD FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00526	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) 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.
ISSUE : The applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct - Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline

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 l5s, one Vacation of Suspended Non­ Judicial Punishment and one Letter of Reprimand. His misconduct included failing to obey a regulation or order, disrespectful language to an NCO (2x), and unlawfully striking his wife on several occasions.

The applicant contends that his discharge was unfair due to the basis of the discharge stemming from false accusations from his former wife. The records indicate the applicant had other incidents of misconduct separate and distinct from the Article 15 he received for misconduct involving his then wife. The DRB opined that through the administrative actions taken, the applicant had opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board found that the applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from the conduct expected of all military members. 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, reason for the discharge or the reenlistment code.

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