AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

HEARING DATE
2016-11-10

CASE NUMBER
FD-2016-
00153

TYPE·

PERSONAL APPEARANCE : X

NON-PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

NAME  OFCOUNSEL ANDOR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGAlllZATlON OF' COUNSEL

Yes	No

ME:MBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC	OTRER

DENY .
x
x. x x x

1	ORDER APPOINTING THEBOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER m:NOTIFICA rro:-i
4	.BRIEF OP PERSONNEL FILE cOilllSEL'S RELEASE TO THE.BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF   PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEAR.ING

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, an(! the right tQ submit an application to the AFBCMR.

TO:

SAFfMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781S0-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCEPERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE D!SCllARGEREVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR,££ Wl'.IG,3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB. MD :Z076!-70ll

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBE R

FD".'2016-00153	

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 traumaticbrain injury and/or special training on mentl health disorders.

The attached brief c?ntains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to .the discharge.

FINDING: The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant. substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of 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, three Letters of Reprimand, and thiee Letters of Counseling. His misconduct includes: demonstrating a pattern ·of unwillingness to comply with a treatment plan while in alcohol rehabilitation; being found drunk while on duty as a detail Airman; contacting an ex-girlfriend after she clearly expressed that she no longer wanted a personal relationship; failing to complete an activity security checklist causing a security violation; failing to properly inventory unclassified mission planning bricks; reporting late to duty; being found with oodily injuries and a blood alcohol level of
.396; and failing to properly secure a classified safe causing a secret planning mission server to be left unsecure.

The applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct -Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure.  The applicant contends that his mental health condition was the cause of his misconduct.  He also stated that receiving the
G.I. Bill would allow himto continue his education.  After review of the records the Board found that the administrative actions taken against the applicant gave ample opportunities for him to change his negative behavior.  The DRB concluded the applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct	· expected of all military members.

The applicant cited his desire to receive the .G.I. Bill benefits asjustification for upgrade.  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.  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 plae 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 ju$tify 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 discharg and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief