AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2017-00549	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 31 Mar 03 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Honorable discharge for Unsatisfactory Performance.  The applicant appealed for a change to her discharge narrative reason and reenlistment eligibility code.  The board was conducted on 8 Feb 18.  

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 4 to 1 to deny the applicant’s request to change her discharge narrative reason and voted unanimously to deny her request to change her 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 contended her reenlistment eligibility code was unjust because it was too harsh.  She requested her discharge narrative reason be changed to “Entry Level Separation” and her reenlistment eligibility code be changed so she could enlist in the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve.    

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s service record, but it did not include the discharge package.  Since the board relies on the presumption of regularity and the applicant did not provide specific evidence to prove the discharge was improper or inequitable, it concluded the discharge received by the applicant 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 16 Mar 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