AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2017-00109	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 5 Apr 13 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge for Misconduct (Serious Offense).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable.  The board was conducted on 28 Jun 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 unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable.

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 narrative 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’s record of service included two Article 15s and two Letters of Reprimand.  His misconduct included:  leaving the scene of an accident in Kuwait, making a false official statement, operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license and without insurance, failure to obey a direct order, and being charged by civilian authorities of pandering, prostitution, and attempted burglary.
 
The applicant contended his discharge was improper because it was based on civilian charges that were later dropped.  The applicant insisted he was innocent, but his unit leadership would not postpone his discharge until after his appearance in civilian court.  He submitted documentation to prove two felony charges against him were later dismissed. 

The DRB noted the applicant was not discharged based on a civilian conviction, but due to misconduct.  Therefore, even though some of the civilian charges against him were later dismissed, it does not mean he did not engage in misconduct.  For example, charges may have been dropped by the prosecution because he chose to cooperate with them and testify against another individual.  The DRB determined that, through the administrative actions taken by the chain of command in this case, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  It concluded the applicant’s serious misconduct was a significant departure from the conduct expected of all military members.

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 his request was not approved. 

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 30 Aug 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