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
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANil.ATION	ADDR!SS AND OR ORCAloUATION OFCOll"NS£L
Yl!S	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
M EM BER  SITTING	!ION	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
x x x
x
ISSllES	A94.54	INDEX NIJMB£R	A67.50	EXHIBITS SUB.MTITED TO THE BOARD
A69.00	1  ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FlLE COUNSEL' S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMJIER

24 Aug 2016	FD-2016-00004
APPUCANT'S ISSUE AND TRBBOAIU»S DECISIOl'AI. RATlO!'IALEAll.EDISCt.'SSED ONTIIE ATIAOIED AIRFORCllDlSCHAROE ltEVIEW BOARD DECISJONALRATIONALE.

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:

t:;;>	.

-

DIDORS.EMENT	DATE:   8/26f2016
FROM.:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COllNOL
AIR  "ORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1SJ5 COMAND DR, EE WING, JRD nooR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781504742	ANDREWS Al'B. MD mn.7CIOI

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00004	

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.

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

DISCUSSION: The applicant was discharged for Misconduct -Pattern of Misconduct and Failure in Alcohol Abuse Treatment 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. Inreviewing 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 15s and one Letter of Reprimand. His misconduct included failing to refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages while under the age of 21, physically controlling a vehicle while drunk, punching a hole in the wall, and failing to refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages while on standby.

The applicant claims that it was his understanding, six months after his discharge that he would be able to  file for an upgrade to his discharge characterization.   However, the Board opined that, an upgrade is by no means automatic.  Also, the Board found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.

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 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