AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD H EARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE ME.\1BER (LAST, FIRST MIDOLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b)(6)
TYPE   GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD REVI EW
COUl\'S&L	NAME OFCOUNSEL AND OR ORGAl"IZATION	ADORESS ANO OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER SITTI NG	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b)(6)	x
x

x x x
ISSUES	A93.23	INOEX NUMBER	A67.10	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
I ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATJON FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETIER OF NOTIFJCATJON
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASETO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITIED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARAN CE HEARJ NG

HllAJUNG OATE	CASE NUMBER

03 Jun 2015	FD-2014-00556
AJ'PLK:ANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOltRD'S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board , the right to a persona l appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

(b)(6)	-

INDORSEMENT	DATE: 6117/2015
TO'	FROM'
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OFTIIE A I R FORCE PERSON'.'>EL COUNCI L
AIR FORCJ; DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND OR,EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB. TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS   AFB, MO  20762..?00I

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00556	

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

The applicant was offered  a personal  appearance before the Discharge Review Board  (ORB) 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:  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE: The applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct - Minor Discipli nary Infractions

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, 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 change is warranted. 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 ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. In order to adhere to Mental Health Amendments to 10 USC 1553, a physician with specialized training on mental health disorders was present for this board . The applicant's record  of service included one Article 15, four Letters of Reprimand, three Letters of Counseling and two Records of Counseling. His misconduct included failure to maintain sufficient funds to pay just debt, lying to an NCO, failure to go to duty on time (3x), failure to report to commander in uniform that meets standards, failure of uniform inspection (2x), disrespecting a Commissioned Officer, failure to comply with procedural rules, failure to refrain from consuming alcohol the night prior to security forces augmentation, and urinating on a female airman's dorm room door.

The applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The applicant believes that he was discharged for a crime that he was not found guilty of. He also stated that he was receiving mental health counseling and that his infractions were related to his mental condition. The Board found no evidence to support. the applicant's claim of being discharged for a crime that he did not commit. After review of the records and advice from the mental health specialist, the DRB found no evidence that the applicant suffered from any major depressive disorders. There was no indication that the applicant had any mental issues that directly contributed to his misconduct. The administrative actions taken against the applicant gave ample opportunities for him to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate

The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification  for upgrade.  The ORB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on July 2, 2003) that he understood he must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact from the loss of these benefits to the applicant; however, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

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.	

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that 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: Examiner's Brief