AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD HEARI NG RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, nRST J\.UDOLE TNJTIAL)	GRADE
(b)(6)
TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL APPEARAN CE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COONS£L	NAME OFCOUNSEL A'.iD OR ORGANIUnos	ADDRESS ANO OR ORGANIZATION or COUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
IEMBER    SlTIING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
-(b)(6)	x

-

x
x
-

-

x
x
ISSUES	A94.54	INDEX NUMBER	A67.10	.EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
1 ORDER APf'OJNTCNG TllE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCJ IARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEi. Fn.E COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO Tiffi BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITIED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARAl\CE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

27 Sep 2016	FD-2016-00049
APl'UCAN1"S ISSUliAND1HEBOARI> s DEOSIONAL RA1TONALEARE DISCUSSED ONTHE ATTAOIED Allt FORCE OISCl!ARGE JUMEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.

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)

-	I!

lNDORSEMENT
TO:	rROM:

c;:;

DATE:

tiSiio.3016

SAF/MRBR

SECR.ETARV OFTRE AIR FORCE PERSO!>o'XEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST,SUITE 40	1535C0\tMMID  DR.££  WINC,JRD   f1..00R
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	""DREWS AJ'B. MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATlONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00049	

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 l 0 USC § 1553 this board included a member who is a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with training on mental health issues cormected with post traumat ic 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 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 standard s of equity and propriety. The applicant's record of service included: two Letters of Reprimand and three Letters of Counseling. His m isconduct included: leaving the shop without asking permission from anyone of authority, failing to show up to physical training assessment with proper uniform, failing to go to a Foreign Object Debris walk, reporting late for duty (2x).

The board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to detem1ine if the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions. The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He states that the decision for discharge for minor infractions was made arbitrarily and does not clearly justify a General discharge. After a review of the records, the Board found that the applicant engaged in various types of misconduct which tended to degrade and disrupt good order and discipline. The DRB opined that through the administrative actions taken, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The ORB further concluded that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of inequity. 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.

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 hi s discharge. Additionally, the Board found no evidence to j ustify an upgrade of the discharge characterization, change of reason and authority for the discharge, or change to 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.

Attadunent: Examiner's Brief