AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST, MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE
2017-08-01	CASE NUMBER FD-2016- 00135	
TYPE
General		PERSONAL APPEARANCE	X	NON-PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND/OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND/OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL	
Yes	No			
	
X			

BOARD MEMBERS	VOTE OF THE BOARD	
	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
(b) (6)					X*#	
(b) (6)					X*#	
(b) (6)					X*#	
(b) (6)					X*#	
(b) (6)					X*#	
(b) (6)						
ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD	
		1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
		2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION	
		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	
APPLICANT’S ISSUE(S) AND THE BOARD’S DELIBERATIONS ARE SUMMARIZED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	
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.

* - Narrative Reason
# - Reenlistment Eligibility Code
(b) (6)	

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, AUG 17	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00135	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), but declined and requested the review be completed based on the available service record.

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

FINDING: The Board found 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 applicant’s record of service included: four Letters of Reprimand and one Letter of Counseling. His misconduct included wrongfully using his government travel card (GTC) for personal use (2x), improperly failing to pay debt incurred by use of his GTC (3x), and failing to attend mandatory study.

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 for Misconduct – Pattern of Misconduct. The applicant did not make any contentions with regards to the discharge. He accepted responsibility for his actions and requested an upgrade of the discharge characterization in an effort to return to military service. The Board determined that through the administrative actions taken, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his behavior, but did not. It found the seriousness of his willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of his service in the Air Force. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.

After a thorough review of the record, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization, to change the reason for the discharge, or the reenlistment eligibility code.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the separations instruction, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board found no evidence to justify upgrading the applicant’s service characterization, changing the reason and authority for the discharge, or the reenlistment eligibility code.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief