--------------·--------

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

TY,PE GEN	I	PERSONAL APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
. ·:';1CO,YF!'SE ·::'I": NAM£0 F COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
1/ES	No
x

·-' .

'·'.. "

..

,,.,·.

VOTE·OF TDElJOARD··
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	OOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b)(6)	x
x x x
x

.:: ._...

ISSUES	INDEXNUMB&R	EXHIBITS SUBMI'ITD TO TKE·BOARD	'	.
A94.54	A67.SO
A67.90	1 ORDER APPOINTING nJEBOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATYON
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITIED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

H&ARINC DATE	CASE NUMB&R

10 Nov 2016	FD-2016-00158

AI,E.

APP·,,UCA'.IT'.S.IS....:..  A:N>.Tl.lE..BOA'-R:D'S D£CISJ.ONAL RA.TlONAUllJUlD!S-CUSSID Cl!' THE A1TACllED A.lll FORCli DISCHA(lGER.EV-l£..W 30AAD DECISIO.NAL RATION. -.	-

l

- :·	....t· ··

SlS'

-    :.•

;	_,.··_..,.....

:.;	-

'.·' - :·..-:...·  --...-:;;,._; .

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance witli/without counsel, and the right to submit an
application to the AFBCM:R.

"(b)(6)	-	l (b)(6J	--

•"	. - .	"

ic  .;	·:..... . ::' ·.-\'• •   r• • ·.;. • ·::1;·:	lNDORSENT	..:	·DtE: lJ,Q.O O,J.6::-  '<·:/: :: ....;.: ·. .·,: - :·'!:":]
'
TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OFffiEAlR FORCE PEllSONNl!L COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISOIARCE REVItW BOARD
SSO C STREET WEST,SUITE 40	l!llS COMMAND DR,°EE WINO, RD Pl.OOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	. ANDREWS AFB. MD 20762-1001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00158	

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 I 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 posttraumatic stress disorder qr 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 applicant'srecord of service included: two Article l 5s; one Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment; one Record of Individual Counseling; and one Letter of Counseling. His misconduct included: .failing to obey a lawful order given by a Senior Non-Commissioned Offiqer; being absent without leave; failing to go to appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on several occasions (2x); and failing to go to mandatory physical fitness appointments.

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 Pattern of Misconduct -Conduct Preju_dicial to Good Order and Discipline. The applicant submitted no issues regarding the equity or propriety of his discharge. He 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. The DRB noted the applicant had served seven years before the discharge was initiated, but concluded that the applicant's misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of his 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 fqund 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 I?rocess.

Inview 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.	

I·
!

Attachment: Examiner's Brief