AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST, MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)	HEARING DATE
10 August 2017	CASE NUMBER
FD-2016-00509	
TYPE
General		PERSONAL APPEARANCE	X	NON-PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND/OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND/OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL	
Yes	No			
	
X			

BOARD MEMBERS	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(S) AND THE BOARD’S DELIBERATIONS ARE SUMMARIZED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	
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.
9/8/2017
(b) (6)	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	CASE NUMBER

FD-2016-00509	

GENERAL: The applicant was discharged on 6 Apr 12 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of her discharge characterization to Honorable and a change to the narrative reason to “Failed Testing.” The board was conducted on 10 Aug 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.

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 her discharge characterization to Honorable and to change the narrative reason.

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: two Letters of Reprimand and one Letter of Counseling.  Her misconduct included sleeping on duty, smoking in a dormitory, and failure to report to her appointed place of duty.  The discharge package also noted she failed to progress in military training and was eventually disenrolled from a training course.

The applicant made no contentions that the discharge was inequitable or improper. She stated she was young and immature at the time and requested a second chance in order to have the opportunity to pursue a career in law enforcement. The DRB recognized the applicant was 19 years old when the discharge took place, but noted she was no younger than the vast majority of first-term Airmen who properly adhere to Air Force standards of conduct.  It also determined that, through the administrative actions taken by the chain of command in this case, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her behavior and be successful.

While the applicant requested the narrative reason for the discharge be changed to “Failed Testing,” this is not an approved narrative reason and the board concluded the current reason was appropriate.

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 her request was not approved.

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 8 Sep 17. 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