AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD H EARING RECORD
NA:\IF. Of Sf.f V I CF. M L\ llH:n (LAST, FIRST l'\ll DDLE IN ITIA i.)	GRA DE	AFSNISSAN
(b) (6)	(b) (6)
TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL APPEAR.A    CE	x	I	RECORD     REVIEW
C:OUNSt'.L	NAME OF COlf.'ISEL ANO OR ORG1\IU\TIO	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANltATION OF C'OlfNSEL
Yt:S	No
x
VOTE Of THE 60A RO
MEMBER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOl l!C	01llF.R	OFNY
(b) (6)	x

f-

f-

f-

-
ISSUES

A94.0S

10,:0EX 1'l1l\IDER

A67.l0

x x x x
EXH IBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOAIU>
I ORDFR 1\PPOINTING TllE BOARD
2	/\PPI JC/\ I ION !'OR REVIEW OF DISCI IARGE
3	Lt I ll R O NOTIFICATION
4	13Rll:I' OJ Pl:RSONM:L I· I Lt
COUNSEL'S RELEASE·10 1111:: BOARD
ADDlllO'IAL EX111131"1 S SUBM rl ·1rnA  TIME OF PCRSONAL APPEARANCl"

TAPE RECOllDING OF l'l·.RSONJ-\1. Al'l'EARANCf: I IEARING

llE \RING O\TE	CASI.NllMUt;R

07 Apr 20 15	FD-2015-000.19
APPLfCMl"S ISSllt A'-10 flI[ BOARD'S orCLSIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCLISSfD ON TllE' ATTACllI::oAfR FORCE OISCllARGB RflVIF\Y BOARD Dr:( ISIONAt. RATIONALE

Case heard in Washi ngton, D.C.

Advise applican t of the decision of t he Board, t he right to a persona l appea rance wi t h/without counsel, and the right to submi t an appl ica tion to the A FBCM R.

(b) (6)

IN DORSE  IENT	DATE: .iJtS/20 I S
lO:	FRQ)J:
SAF MRBR	St:f Rt:lAR\ ot"fllt:All< FORCt: Pr.RSONNCI. \Ol \flL
,\IH f"ORC:-t: 1)18(llARCt:Rf:\ IE\\ BOARO
550 C s·1REE.I \VJSI. SUI I E --10	lJ.\ CO\l\IA    U OR. ti-:\\ INC:.JHI) 1.-..    OOR
RANDOLPll AFB, TX 78 150---1742	,\NORE\\ ,\f B.MO Z076l·700 1

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONA L RATIONA LE	CASE    U\I BER

FD-2015-000 19	

GENERAL:  The appl icant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable; a change to the narrati ve reason and a change to the reenlistment code.

The applicant was offered a persona l appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) but decl ined and requests that the review be completed based on the avai lable service record.

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

FINDJNG: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge; reason and authori ty for discharge and change of reenlistment code.

ISSUE: The applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct -Minor Discipl inary Infractions

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under i ts responsibili ty 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. I n reviewing discharges, the Board presu mes regulari ty in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presum ption, to incl ude 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 perti nent standards of equi ty and propriety. The applica nt's record of service i ncl uded one Article 1 5, one Vacation of non-jud icial punishment, three Letters of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseli ng. H is misconduct included sleeping on post, smoking in donn room, failure to follow standard procedures per special security instruction, failu re to obey regulation. failure to be on t ime for duty, and com municati ng indecent language and threats towards a fellow airman.

The appl icant contends that his discharge was inequitable because i t was too harsh. The ORB opined that through the administrative actions taken, the applicant had ample oppo1tunities to change his negati ve behavior.  The Board concluded the appl icant's miscond uct was a significant depa1ture from conduct
expected of all military mem bers.  The Board also concluded that the negat ive aspects of the applican t's service outweighed  the posi ti ve contributions  he made i n  his Air Force career. The characterization, narrati ve reason and re-en Iistment code of the discharge rccei vcd by the applican t were found to be appropriate.

A discharge is upgraded only i f the applicant and the Board can establish that an ineq u i ty or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  After a thorough review of the record, the Board  found no evidence to justi fy an upgrade of the discharge characterization,  reason  for the discharge or the reenl istment code.

CONCLUSION:	The  Discharge   Review   Board  concludes  that  the  discha rge  was  consistent   wi th  the procedu ral  and  substanti ve  requ irements  of  the  discharge  regulation,  was  wi t hin  the  discretion  or the
discharge authority, and t hat  the applicant was provided  fu ll administrati ve due process.

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