AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

! NAME  OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

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.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

*Reason and Authority
+Reenl istment Code

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST,  SUITE 40 RANDOL Pl I AFB, 'I X 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF TIIE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVU,:W llOARD
!5JS COMMAND DR, EE WING, JR.I);'l.OOR
ANDREWS 1\t'll, MD 10762-7001

Al<'HQ FOR.!'10-2077, .JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIE\V  BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASK NUMBER

FD-2009-00190	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, to  change  the  reason  and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING: Upgrade of the discharge, change of reason and authority for discharge and change reenlistment code are denied.

The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Applicant was discharged for unsatisfactory participation from Michigan ANG on 31 August 2000. Applicant stated on DD form 293 that he was having family issues and had to move back home to Missouri. Applicant further stated he tried to clear up the issue with the Michigan ANG, but a couple of months had past and he was released from Michigan ANG.  The Board was unable to find any documentation regarding the discharge.  Due to lack of evidence and supporting documentation to explain the discharge, the Board concludes that the misconduct was a significant departure from the conduct expected of al l mi litary members.  The Board relies on the presumption of regularity and finds the characterization; reason for discharge and the reenlistment code were appropriate.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Exan1iner's Brief