AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2019-00440	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 31 Jan 2014 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a(n) Honorable discharge for Miscellaneous/General Reasons.  The applicant appealed for a change to the discharge narrative reason and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.  The board was conducted on 17 Oct 2019.  

The applicant initially chose to have a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), but requested the board be completed based on a records only review.  The board deemed him eligible for one.

The applicant was represented by counsel.    

Pursuant to 10 USC §1553, the board included a member who is a psychiatrist/ psychologist 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 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 included an Article 15 for with intent to deceive/sign an official record.

The applicant and counsel contended that the discharge was inequitable/improper.  The applicant believed that he would receive a 1J instead of a 4H reenlistment code, which he was made aware of when he requested his military records.  They insist that if the applicant knew that his current reenlistment code would prevent him from reenlisting, he would have opted to request for an extension until his suspended sentence was remitted and subsequently discharged with a more favorable code.  The applicant’s post discharge conduct as a law enforcement employee has been exemplary, has no criminal record or use of illicit drugs.  He contends that he deserves a second chance despite his misconduct in order to have the opportunity to serve in the military again.  He is also requesting for the upgrade so that he can receive his GI Bill and progress in a law enforcement career. 

The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, awards and decorations, and other accomplishments.  The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found 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 Department of Veteran Affairs education benefits.  The DRB determined that, through the administrative actions taken by the chain of command in this case, the applicant had an opportunity to change his negative behavior.  The DRB was pleased to see the applicant has been successful since leaving the Air Force.  However, the board reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant any changes to the discharge.  It found the seriousness of the applicant’s willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of his service.  

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 14 May 20.  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)