AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)
TYPE GEN	x	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUl'IS&L	NAME Of COIJNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF CO\JNS£L
YES	No

(b) (6)
x

VOTE OFTIIE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

(b) (6)	X*#

X*#
X*# X*#

ISSUES	A94.55	INDEX NUMBER	A67.30	EXHIBITS SUBMTITED TOTIIE BOARD
1	ORDER APPOJNTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR R.EVJEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LE"ITER OF NOTIFICATlON
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADOTTIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

X*#

TAPE RECORDJNG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

KEARING DAIt	CASE NUMBER

07 Jul 2016	FD-2016-00042
APPUCANT'SISSlllANDnlEllOARD'SDECIS10NALRA110NALl!MEDJSCUSSEl>ONTill!ATTACTIEDAIRFORCE            DISCHARGEREVIEWllOARDDECISIONALRATIONALa

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

*Narrative Reason
#RE Code

-(b) (6)	-

l7			INDORSEMENT	DATE: 7fl612016
TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY or THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR t"ORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANOOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, !\ID20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE: :>illMBER

FD-2016-00042	

GENERAL:   The applicant appeals for upgrade  of discharge  characterization  to Honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Joint Base Andrews, MD, on July 07, 2016.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5: Applicant' s additional documents

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 - Serious Offense, Intentional Neglect or Failure to Perform Assigned Duties, Intentionally Misrepresenting or Omitting facts in Official Statements. 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 Letter of Reprimand. His misconduct included: conspiring with at least one Air Force officer to cheat on an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) Crew Knowledge test by distributing and/or receiving test answers; willfully failing to ensure that two certified missile combat crew officers were awake and capable of detecting an unauthorized act when someone other than the crew was in the launch control center; willfully failing to ensure that two certified missile combat crew officers were awake and capable of detecting an unauthorized act when the blast door was not secured with pins extended or latch engaged; with intent to deceive, made a false official statement to his commander when asked whether a subordinate was awake when a maintenance crew was in the launch control center; and wrongfully and dishonorably directing his subordinate to provide false information to his commander, indicating that she was awake when a maintenance crew was in the launch control center.

The applicant states that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 72 months of service with only one minor adverse action.  He also claims that the discharge was improper because his only administrative punishment was used in the discharge proceedings without a chance for rehabilitation.   The DRB recognized that the applicant had served six years before the discharge was initiated, but concluded that the applicant 's misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of his time in the Air       Force.  The Board reviewed the entire record and found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board 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, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization, change to the 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