AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAl\'1£ OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b)(6)	HEARING DATE
2017-01-06	CASE NUMBER
FD-2016-
00255	
TYPE		PERSONAL APPEARANCE	x	NON-PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
COUNSEL	K-\ME OFCOUl\SEL AND OR ORC..\J<"IZATIO!'	ADDRESS.-\1\1> OR ORC.-\1\"JZ.ATION OFCOUNSEL	
Yes	No			
				
MEMBER SITTING	VOTE OF THE BOARD	
	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
(b)(6)					X*#	
(b)(6)					X*#	
(b)(6)					X*#	
(b)(6)					X*#	
(b)(6)					X*#	
ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD	
		1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
		2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LETTER  OFNOTIFICATION	
		4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL Fil.E	
			COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
			ADDITTONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF   PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING	
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND lllE BOARD"S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ONlllE AlTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	
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.

*Na1rntive Reason
#RE Code

(b)(6)

SICl'AllrRE OFBO.\RD PRESIDENT	DATE:  3/3/2017	
TO:
SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB,TX 78150-4742	FROM:
SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCE PERS01'1'  L COUNCll.
.-\JR FORCE DISCH.'\RCE REVIEW BOARD
!!J' S COMMAND DR, EE \\'lNC,3RD FLOOR
.-\!\"DREWS AFB,MD 20761-7001	
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASENUl\IBER

FD-2016-00255	

GENERAL: 1he applicant appeals 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 requests that the review be completed based on the available se1vice record.

The attached brief contains  available  pe1tinent data on the applicant and the fu.ctors leading  to the discharge.

FINDING: 1he Board finds insufficient evidence of an inequity  or impropriety that would wairnnt a change to the applicant's  discharge.

DISCUSSION: The Air Force Discharge Review Boai·d, 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 fur dischaige  if such change is wan-anted.  Inreviewing  discharges,  the Boai·d presumes regu]arity  in the conduct of governmental  affuirs  unless  there is  substantial  credible  evidence  to rebut  the  presumption,   to include
evidence submitted  by the applicant.

The Boai·d completed  a thorough  review of the circlllllStances that led to the dischaige  and the discharge process to detennine  if the discharge met the pe1tinent  standards of equity and propriety.   The applicant received an Enny Level Separation  for Fraudulent  Enny.   1he applicant  submitted  no issues regarding  the equity  or propriety of his dischaige .  1he applicant  states that he believes he nnde a mistake  and dese1ves a second chance despite his prior se1vice  diug use so that he may reenlist  back into the military.

The reason for the dischai·ge, fraudulent enny, was in accordance with AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.15, which stipulates airman may be discharged for fraudulent entry based on the procurement of a fraudulent enlistlnent or period of milit:aiy service through any dehberate, material nrnrepresentation, omission, or conceahnent that, if
known at the time of enlistment or entry into a period of militai·y se1vice, might have resulted in rejection.  The fraud may occur at any time in the enlistment process; for example, when anmen ai·e asked to fill out fo1ms.  1he Board found the negative  aspects of falsifying documents outweighed  the positive aspects of the applicant's pe1fonnance  and conchrled that the discharge  was appropriate.  The Board reviewed  the entiie record and fouirl no evidence  of impropriety  or inequity  to waffant an upgrade of the discharge.

CONCLUSION: 1he Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requn·emmts of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority,  and that the applicant  was provided  ii.ill adininistrative  due process.

Inview of the foregoing  :findings, the Boai·d fouirl no evidence to justify   characterizing  the applicant's  servtce or to change  the  reason and  authority  for the  dischaige.

.Attacl:nrent: Examiner's   Brief