AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

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

SRA
X	RECORD REVlll.W
APDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNS•;L

x x x x

ISSUES

A93.01

INDEX NUMBER

A84.00

HRAR!NG llATE

2  APPUCA TION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 •  LE JTER OF NOTil'ICA TION	
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
	ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
	TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING	

arance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an	

CASE NUMBER

26 Aug 2010	FD-2009-0019 l

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appe application to the AFBCMR.

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

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SlJlTF RANDOLPH AFB. TX

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, .JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous

	
FORCE DISCHARGE.REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00191	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

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.

After a review of the record, the Board unanimously  voted to grant the relief of the requested upgrade as discussed below.

FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the d ischarge.

The Board  finds that  neither  the evidence  of record  nor that provided  by  the  applicant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefini tely for a mistake he made when young and immature.  The records al so indicate member was discharged for unsatisfactory participation.  The ORB recognized the applicant was 25 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  Upon review of the record, 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 all military members.  The Board relies on the presumption ofregularity and finds the characterization; reason for discharge and the reenl istment code were appropriate.

Issue 2.  The applicant stated he was told his discharge would automatically be upgraded.  The Board noted the issue was common result of miscommunication, at the time of discharge, when the applicant is briefed that their discharge will automatically be upgraded after six months.  While a discharge may be upgraded after six months, the upgrade is by no means automatic.  A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the Board can establish that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  After a thorough review of the record, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization, reason for the discharge or the reenlistment code.

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 appl icant 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 lmchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief	

lR