AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2019-00056	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 9 Jan 18 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge for In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to General, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.  

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Joint Base Andrews, MD, on 5 Feb 20.  A witness was present and testified on the applicant’s behalf.  

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, to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority, and to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 3K.

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 does not include any disciplinary actions. 

The applicant contended the discharge was improper because there was never a substantial finding of his guilt, he believed the Area Defense Counsel (ADC) was not competent enough to go to trial, and his First Sergeant did not read him his right prior to repeating a conversation they had to OSI during the investigation.  The applicant insists that he never received the statements from the alleged victim, the character statements, or the report of investigation from the Staff Judge Advocate.  He insists that he was he was never given the opportunity to give his side of the events surrounding the incident, due to advice from his counsel.  The applicant states that he submitted the Chapter 4 after he worked the ADC in preparation for trial, but lost confidence in their ability to represent him.  He believed the lack of confidence contributed to the pressure of the societal stigma that would be attached to him if he lost the trial during court-martial.  The applicant contended the discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  He believes the discharge characterization is not an appropriate representation of him or his service.  The applicant is currently employed as a contractor on a military installation.  He is requesting the upgrade in order to complete a degree in law enforcement through the use of the G.I. Bill, and to return to military service.  

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire record, and found the applicant initiated the Chapter 4 and was approved for discharge.  The board determined that the applicant received advice from counsel, and did not provide any evidence to substantiate the lack of capability on behalf of the ADC.  The board noted the applicant received a discharge based on the conditions of Chapter 4 request that he initiated.  The board concluded there was no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.  The board understood the applicant’s present service characterization renders him ineligible for the Department of Veteran Affairs education benefits.  However, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

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 12 Feb 2020.  If desired, the applicant can request a list of the board members and their votes by writing to:  

Air Force Review Boards Agency
Attn: Discharge Review Board
3351 Celmers Lane
Joint Base Andrews, NAF Washington, MD 20762-6602  

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief (Applicant Only)