AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b} (6)
TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL   APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZ.ATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OFCOUNSEL
YES	No
x

(b) (6)

VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x
x

-
x
x
ISSUES	AOl.00	INDEX NUMBER	A67.10	EXH.IBITS SUBMIITED TO THE BOARD
IORDER APP0£NTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETIER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDJTIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMJTfED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

20 Jul 2016	FD-2015-00541
APPtJCANT'S ISSUE AND nm BO.\JlD'S Df.CISIONALllAJlONALE  AM DISCUSSED ONTll£ ATTACHED MR.FORCE DISCHAAOE R.EVll!W BOAJID DECISJONALRAUONALE.

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)

INDORSEMENT	DATE:   _
TO:	FROM:

SAFIMRBR

S.tCRUARY OFTH&AlR FORC& PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIJ!:W BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	lSJSCOMMAND DR, E:I! WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB,MD W76l-700t

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00541	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for 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.

Pursuant to I 0 USC 1553 this board included a member who is a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with training on mental health issues connected with post traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury and/or special training on mental health disorders.

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 three Letters of Reprimand. His misconduct included: making a false official statement with intent to deceive; driving while under the influence of alcohol and impeding the progress of an investigation.

The applicant contends that he was discharged for allegations for which he was not found guilty. He would like to receive an upgrade in order to receive G.I. Bill benefits. After a review of the records, the Board found that IAW AFJ36-3208, paragraph 5.49, the applicant's misconduct provides a legally sufficient basis for his administrative discharge. There is insufficient evidence to support the applicant 's claim of
impropriety. The DRB opined that, through the admini strati ve actions taken, the applicant had 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.

The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits asjustification for upgrade. 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.

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 and advice from the mental health specialist, the Board found no indication that any mental health issues had an impact on the applicant's misconduct or on his discharge. Additionally, the Board found no evidence to just ify an upgrade of the discharge characterization.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirementsof 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