AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT	CASE NUMBER

FD-2017-00349	

GENERAL: The applicant was discharged on 22 Dec 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 and a change to the discharge narrative reason. 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 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, and to change the discharge 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 four Letters of Reprimand and four Letters of Counseling. His misconduct included: failure to report to his assigned duty location on time, failure to obey a direct order resulting in dereliction of duty, failure to go to appointed place of duty, failure to obey a direct order or regulation, failure to obey base traffic instructions, and failure to obey a lawful order or regulation (x3).

The applicant contended his discharge was too harsh based on the minor infractions he committed. He also claimed he was denied due process and discharged as a result of a reduction in force initiative instead of as a result of his misconduct.

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. The board concluded the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career. The board did not agree with the applicant’s contention that he was denied due process since the service record indicated he consulted counsel and submitted a response to his discharge notification.  Additionally, the DRB did not find any evidence in the service record to indicate the applicant was discharged as part of a reduction in force initiative.

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