AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b)(6)	HEARING DATE
2017-03-08	CASE NUMBER
FD-2016-
00341	
TYPE
General		PERSONAL APPEARANCE	x	NON-PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	
COUNSEL	l'A!l!E OF COU!'iSEL AND OR ORG..\l'\IZATIO!'	ADDRESSAND OR ORGANIZATIO!'i OFCOU!'iSEL	
Yes	No			
	x			
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*	
(b)(6)						
ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER	EXHIBITS SUB!\UTTED TO THE BOARD	
		1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
		2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION	
		4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
			COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
			ADDITTONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF  PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING	
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARDS DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ONTHE AITACHED 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.

* - Naffative Reason
(b)(6)

SIGNATURE OFBOARD PRESIDENT	DATE:4/17/2017	
TO:
SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB,TX 78150-4742	FRO!\!:
SECRETARY OF 1HEAIR FORCE PERSONl\"ELCOu"NCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BO..\RD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE ThlNG,3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB,MD 20761-7001	
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00341	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization to Honorable and to change the narrative reason for discharge.

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.

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 either the applicant’s discharge or the narrative reason for 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’s record of service included: two Article 15; one Letter of Reprimand; and one Letter of Counseling. His misconduct included misusing government travel card; wrongfully using marijuana; failing to report to with personal bag for inspection; and failing to follow an order from a Non Commissioned Officer.

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 Misconduct – Drug Abuse. The applicant does not make a contention, but would like the opportunity to use full education benefits. The applicant provided proof of VA Disability Benefits (10%), and partial educational benefits via the Vocational Rehabilitation and Education services. 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.

After a thorough review of the record, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization or the narrative reason.

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 found no evidence to justify characterizing the applicant’s service or to change the narrative reason for the discharge.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief