AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (lAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)
TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSIL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
x

x x x
ISSUtS	A93..10	INDEX NUMBE R	A67.10	EXHIBITS SUBMIITED TO THE BOARD
A49.00	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

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

19 Aug 2016	FD-2015-00631
Al'l'LICANT'S ISSIJEA}o{D nm BOAJU>'SDl!CISJONAL RATIOICALEAJl.EDISCU\SBD ON ll!EiATIAa!ED AIR FORCBDISOtUGE RBVIEWBOAJU> DECISIONAL RA'l10NALE.

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)

....
/

INDOBS.EMENT	DATE: &1'2612016
TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY OFTll£ AIR FORCE PERSON'EL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	IS3S COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	Al'IDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-0063 1	

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.

Pursuant to 10 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.

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

FIDING: The Board finds insufficient evidence of an inequi ty or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant 's discharge.

DISCUSSION: The applicant was discharged for Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions and Unsatisfactory Duty Perfonnance with service characterized as Under Honorable Conditions (General). 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 one Article 15 and one Record of Individual Counseling. His misconduct included failing to report to his place of duty for nine days and sleeping during detail.

The applicant submitted no issues regarding the equity or propriety of his discharge. The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. The Board is aware that the applicant's present service characterization renders him ineligible for Department of Veteran Affairs education 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 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 foregoi ng 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