AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2017-00627	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 17 Feb 16 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General Discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable. 

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Joint Base Andrews, MD, on 7 Aug 18.  A witness was present, but did not testify on the applicant’s behalf.  An additional exhibit was submitted prior to the hearing.     

Pursuant to 10 USC §1553, the board included a member who is a psychiatrist with training on mental health issues connected with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI), and training on mental health disorders.

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 one Article 15, six Letters of Reprimand, and three Letters of Counseling.  His misconduct included:  failure to report for a mandatory appointment, failure to go at the prescribed time to his place of duty (x4), failure to obey a lawful order (x2), failure to follow established duty procedures (x2), and failure to obtain a passing score on an annual duty evaluation (x3). 

The applicant contended he received an Article 15 and a General discharge for failing to attend an appointment that he was not notified of due to a miscommunication.  Therefore, he believed his discharge was unjust and unfair.

The DRB noted the applicant did not receive an Article 15 for the missed appointment he referred to.  Additionally, at that time, he had already been notified that he was being recommended for discharge with a General service characterization for his long history of previous misconduct.  The DRB determined that, through the multiple administrative actions taken by the chain of command in this case, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  It concluded the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions he made during his Air Force career.

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 9 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