AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)
TYPE	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF CQUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OPCOUNSEL
YES	No
x

(b) (6)

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

ISSUES	A94.54	INDEX NUMBER	A62.00	EXHIBITSSUBMfITED TOTHE  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
ADDITIONA L EXHTBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NVM8ER

04 Aug 2016	FD-2015-00647
APPLICANTS ISSl,lll AND nm BOAR.D'SDECISIONAL RATIONALBAR!l DISCUSSED ONll!£ATTAQUll) AIR FORC6 OISOWtGB R£VmW BOARD DECISIONAL RA110NAJJ!.
I
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.

/

+ CHANGE REASON AND AUTHORITY TO SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY	r-
(b) (6)

JNDOitSf MENT
TO:	FROM:

......,

DATE: 314/ibri"

SAf/MRBR

SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW 80ARI>
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	l!.15COMMAND DR. EE WING, JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AE'B, TX 78 150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00647	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for characterization of his uncharacterized entry level separation as General and to change the reason and authority for the discharge.

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 finds insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant's discharge.

However, based upon the record and evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's reason and authority for discharge inequi table.

DISCUSSION:  The applicant received Entry Level Separation discharge for Fraudulent Enlistment.  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 goverrunental 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 contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on belief that he had prior knowledge of a pre-existing medical condition that caused him to be discharged from the Air Force. He contends the narrative reason infers he was possibly dishonest during his military entrance process and gives a false impression of his character. He further contends his discharge should have been characterized as an erroneous enlistment.

The record indicates the applicant was found to have a condition of "Epistaxis."The Board finds merit in the applicant's contention regarding the reason for his discharge. The reason for the discharge, erroneous enlistment, would have been consistent with all provided documentation , and more closely follows AFI 36- 3208, paragraph 5.14, which stipulates airmen are subject to discharge from an erroneous enlistment only if it was not the result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the member. As such, his discharge for an erroneous enlistment means he would not have been allowed to enlist had the Air Force been aware of his condition, and does not infer the applicant failed to disclose he had the condition, for which he had never been diagnosed. The record indicates the applicant's condition was so severe that it prevented continued training. The applicant served less than 180 days and, therefore, his service does not qualify for characterization as honorable.  His uncharacterized service is not considered as either good or bad. A discharge is upgraded or changed only if it can be established that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.

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.	

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief