AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OFSERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER
(b) (6)	(b) (6)	FD-2016-
00151
TYPE		PERSONAL   APPEARANC E	x	NON-PERSONAL      APPEARANCE COUNSEL	NAME OFCOUl(SEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	AOORESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OFCOSE!.
Yes	No

MEMBER SITTING	VOTE  OF THE BOARD	.
-	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
x x x x

ISSUES	IND£X NUMBER	EXHIBITSSUBMITTED.TO THE JlQARD

'· '

. ...'

'	.	.	. .	'	.	.	·.
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER  OFNOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S  RELEASETO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMTITBD AT TIMEOF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDINGOF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

AJIPUCAl'l'T'S ISSUE AND lllE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL£AR£0lSCUSS£D ONntE AlTACHEO AIR EORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATI9NALE.
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)

TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECR&TARV OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSONNEi. COUNCI

550 C STREBT WEST, SUITE 40

AIR FORCE DISCfURCE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EEWING, JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFO, MD 207'1.?00I

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

A1R FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00151	

GNERAL:   The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization to Honorable.

The applicant was offered a personcµ 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 traumaticbrain 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 applicanf s discharge.

DISCUSSION: The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under its responsibility to examine .the propriety and equity of an applicanf s discharge, is authorized to change the characterization of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  Inreviewing 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: one Article 15; one Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment; two Letters of  Reprimand; d one  Letter of Counseling.  His misconduct included: failing to report to work for roll call (3x); failing to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty; stealing 20 dollars and a debit card from another Airman; and stealing 304 dollars from the
Metropolitan Police Department Community Credit Union.

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 -Minor Disciplinary Infractions.  The applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for the mistakes he made when he was young and immature.  He claims that he is not that same person that he was while in the Air Force.  The DRB recognized that the applicant was 19 years of age when the discharge took place.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant is·doing well and graduated at the top of his class.  However, the Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to	arrant an upgrade of the discharge.  The Board concluded that the characterization of the applicant's sei;vice was appropriate based on the misconduct.

A discharge is upgraded  only if it is established that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  After athorough 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 Rview 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 determ.lnes the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief   .