AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD H EARJ NG RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)

TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARAN CE	x	I	RECORD   REVIEW
COl!NSEI.	NAME OFCOUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESSAl•D OR ORCA. 1l.ATION Of COL'SS£L
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
M EMBER   SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
x
x
x x
ISSUES	A94.54	INDEX mrmDt	A67.10	EXHIBITS SUBMITI'ED TO THE BOARD
l ORDER APPOJNTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVlEW OF DlSCHARGE
3	LETTER  OF NOTIF1CATION
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

HtARINC DATil	CASE NUMBDt

28 Sep 2016	FD-2016-00097
Al'PIXANT"S JSSUEANtl THE BOAJlD'S D£C1SIONAL RATIONAL£ AREDISCUSSW ON ntE ATTACHED AIR. FOR.CB DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.

Case beard 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:	
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPI I AFB, TX 78150-4742	FROM:	
SECRETARY OPTHE AIR fORC!t PERSONNEi. COl!i'CIL AIR fORCli DISCHAJIC& R&VIEW BOARD
1Sl5COMA11' > DR,££ WING,3RD PLOOR
A  Dlll\WSAFB. MD 10761-7Gll	

-	INDORSEM:ENT		DATE: I0110/2016 	

AFRQ F0&'10-2077, JAl"'i 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUM BER

FD-2016-00097	

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 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 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's record of service included: one Article 15, one Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment, one Letter of Reprimand, and four Letters of Counseling. His misconduct included: failing to follow technical orders, failing to go to scheduled appointment, unlawfully striking another Airman on or around the face with his fist, failing to report to class at the prescribed time, failing to report to duty at the prescribed time, failing to go to an appointed place of duty, and driving under the influence offense.

The board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to determine if the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The applicant received a General discharge ror Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions. The applicant submitted no issues regarding the equity or propriety of his discharge. The applicant also 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 DRB noted the applicant had served three years before the discharge was initiated , but concluded that the applicant's misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of hjs time in the Air Force. 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, 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 detennines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Exami ner's Brief