·--·  ·----------	---- . -·- ---· - .--·- -- -

AIR FORCE Dl CHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OFSERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST l\llDDLE INlTlAL)	GR..ADE-	, ..	.·--
(b) (6)

..:. ·:-	·'\-·-··:-f,; · :

'
'..;.· .1	:/. #' :}:· - -.'. 1.;.,·  \

.,.. •.9'	,t;,• •	:(	I;.,

TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD REVIEW   . Y	\ · ;" .-\f-i	.,

.:.. Oql(st;;".: NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORCANIZATION
YES	No
x

ADORtss Al''.D OR ORCANftATION°l:lF COUN i; '	' .	'

.. VOT.E 91" 0	3t.:··:·\- :;;.',:,',./',;:·.
MEMBER   SITTING	HON	OBN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
x x x
x
ISSU£S	A94.S4	INDEX NUMBER	A66.00	.EXHIBIT SSUBMI'IT  D TO' qIE] -QARJ>	, •       - . ... tJ'
1 ORDER APPOINI'ING THE BOARD
2  APPUCATION FORREVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETIER  OFNOTIFICATION
4	BRIEFOF PERSONNEL Fll.E
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING
HEARINGDATE	CASE NUMBER

12 Oct 2016	FD-2016-00104

'f. ·..

J'L!'S  UE A!ID.  BO"S,DECIS:ONALRATIC:XAU:ARE DISCUSSED ON 'Jl.'.B ATTACHED ADl FORql DISCHARGE B.EVIEW 30A.1\µ,;DECISIONA1. J!fTIONAµ.	-:c.;":-'-.,..··	,. .... =-= • .•.r · ';"'I
·:	• \	"l {
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---··

,.	•.. ..	.. .	..

,, · INDORSEMENT

·c:::::::::=:':t>A'f..I!:: : 1012612016".'."' ..:'- .:·'.::;, '.,:· ...r,.,I

.·.  .   .	:	,t.•,·.• ;f'"

'

TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

S&CR&TAR V OFTHl:AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL ·
AI R FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
SSO C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	ISlS COMMAND DR, EE WINC,lRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, Ml> 20761-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00104	

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 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 for wrongfully using Spice.

The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to determine ifthe discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct -Drug Abuse.  The applicant states that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident.  The applicant also cited his desire to receive the
G.I. Bill benefits asjustification for upgrade. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. Also, the Board found no evidence to indicate that the applicant was unaware of the Air Force policy of zero tolerance to drug use. The DRB recognized that the applicant had served three years before the discharge was initiated, but concluded that  the applicant's misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of his time inthe Air Force. The Board is aware that the applicant's present service characterization renders himineligible 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:

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