AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE
2017-06-28	CASE NUMBER FD-2016- 00403	
TYPE
General		PERSONAL APPEARANCE	X	NON-PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL	
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	
						
ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD	
		1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
		2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION	
		4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
			COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
			ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF   PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING	
APPLICANT’S ISSUE AND THE BOARD’S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.	
Case heard at JB Andrews, MD.

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.

(b) (6)

SIGNATURE OF BOARD PRESIDENT	DATE: 9/14/2017	
TO:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	FROM:
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001	
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00403	

GENERAL: The applicant was discharged on 10 Feb 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 28 Jun 17.

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.

Pursuant to 10 USC §1553, the 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 (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI), and/or training on mental health disorders.

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 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, three Letters of Reprimand, and two Letters of Counseling. His misconduct included: failure to go to his appointed place of duty (x3), failure to contact his chain of command regarding a quarters recommendation, failure to complete and submit a deployment checklist, reporting to work unshaven and without an Airman Battle Uniform blouse, being absent without leave on multiple occasions, and leaving his place of duty without authority.

The applicant stated the discharge was inequitable because it was based on one lateness and wearing the wrong boots at a firing range.  He also cited his desire to receive G.I. Bill benefits as justification for an upgrade to the service characterization.  The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, awards and decorations, and other accomplishments.  The board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. The board understood the applicant’s present service characterization renders him ineligible for the 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 deemed to be appropriate.

After a thorough review of the service record and inputs from the board’s psychiatrist, the DRB found no conclusive indication that any mental health issues had a direct impact on the applicant's misconduct or discharge.

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 14 Sep 17. 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