AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2016-00288	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 31 Mar 14 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable.  The board was conducted on 12 Jan 18.  

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), but declined and requested the board be completed based on a records only review.  The applicant was not represented by counsel.    

The attached examiner’s brief (provided to applicant only), extracted from available service records, contains pertinent data regarding the circumstances and character of the applicant’s military service. 
  
FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable.

DISCUSSION:  The DRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the characterization of service and the narrative reason for discharge if such changes are warranted.  If applicable, the board can also change the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility code.  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 determine if the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  

The applicant’s record of service included one Article 15, four Letters of Reprimand, and four Letters of Counseling.  His misconduct included:  being disrespectful to an NCO (x2), failure to follow technical guidance, failure to submit evaluation bullets to his supervisor, failure to go to duty at the prescribed time, failure to obey a lawful order from a SNCO, leaving his place of duty without being released, failure to complete mandatory training (x2), making unauthorized government travel card purchases, and failure to sign in government equipment.

The applicant contended the discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident and that his chain of command did not provide him the necessary support.  

The DRB recognized the applicant served over five years before the discharge was initiated and reviewed his entire service record.  It noted his misconduct occurred from November 2011 to February 2014, so it was not a single “isolated incident.”  The board concluded the extent and seriousness of the applicant’s willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of his service. 

CONCLUSION:  The board found insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant’s discharge.  Therefore, the discharge received by the applicant was deemed to be appropriate and his request was not approved. 

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 2 Mar 18.  If desired, the applicant can request a list of the board members and their votes by writing to:  SAF/MRBR (CITU), 550-C Street West, Suite 41, Randolph AFB, TX  78150-4743.
  
Attachment:
Examiner's Brief