AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	CASE NUMBER

FD-2017-00014	

GENERAL: The applicant was discharged on 29 Jul 11 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 21 Dec 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 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: two Article 15s, one vacation of suspended nonjudicial punishment, two Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of Counseling, and two Records of Individual Counseling. His misconduct included: failure to go to appointed place of duty (x2), failure to go at the prescribed time to an appointed place of duty, failure to report for shift roll call (x2), failure to return to prescribed place of duty on time (x2), failure to report to work on time (x2), and failure to achieve a passing score on five different career development course end of course pre-tests.

The applicant contended the discharge was inequitable because it was based on incidents that did not impact his duty performance.  He claimed he was taking medication that caused him to be drowsy and oversleep.
He also requested the upgrade in an effort to obtain access to GI Bill benefits.

The DRB determined that, through the administrative actions taken by the chain of command in this case, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. It determined failing to report for duty, or reporting late, would have a direct impact on the applicant’s duty performance, as well as the unit’s mission. Even though the applicant claimed he was taking medication that caused him to be drowsy and oversleep, he failed to report or reported late for duty at times when he was not on the referenced medication. Additionally, the board understood 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.

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 24 Jan 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