AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE
2017-04-25	CASE NUMBER FD-2016- 00411	
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*	
(b) (6)						
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 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.

* - Narrative Reason	(b) (6)

SIGNATURE OF BOARD PRESIDENT	DATE: 6/13/2017	
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 RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00411	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge characterization to Honorable, and to change the reason and authority for the 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 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’s record of service included: one Article 15; one Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment; and six Letters of Reprimand. His misconduct included failing to use a seatbelt while operating a vehicle (2x); disobeying a lawful order to report to the law enforcement desk; using provoking speech to another Airman; possessing property of other military members; reporting one hour late for duty; driving under the influence of alcohol, speeding, no proof of insurance and no valid driver’s license; without authority absenting himself from duty; failing to go at the time prescribed to an appointed place of duty; and rendezvousing with another Airman to pick him up after he abandoned a stolen vehicle.

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. The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because he did not receive the proper assistance for his behavioral issues. The applicant states that he sought help to separate but due to his age and immaturity, he did not understand that there were other options besides a misconduct discharge. The Board opined that, through the administrative actions taken, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his behavior. They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.

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

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 reason and authority for the discharge.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief