AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	CASE NUMBER

FD-2017-00033	

GENERAL: The applicant was discharged on 19 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, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.  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, to change the discharge narrative reason, and to change the reenlistment eligibility code.

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 and two Letters of Reprimand. His misconduct included: failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, without authority, absenting himself from his place of duty, failure to obey a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer, and being derelict in the performance of duties by willfully refusing to continue training.

The applicant contended the discharge was improper because he was never absent without leave (AWOL) since he was not absent from his place of duty for more than 24 hours. The applicant accepted responsibility for some of his decisions that resulted in disciplinary actions, and requested the upgrade in an effort to reenlist and continue serving in the military.

The DRB reviewed the entire record and noted the applicant was never disciplined for being AWOL. As noted above, his misconduct included failure to go and absenting himself from his place of duty, but not being AWOL. The board 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. The board found the seriousness of the applicant’s willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of his service.

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 25 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