AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2019-00529	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 10 May 2019 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a(n) General discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable.  The board was conducted on 29 Oct 2019.  

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 numerous Letters of Reprimand and Counseling.  His misconduct included:  multiple dereliction of duty and failure to obey.

The applicant contended the discharge was inequitable because it was for offenses that were minor in nature.  He also cited his desire to receive G.I. Bill benefits as justification for an upgrade to the service characterization.  He contends he was struggled to adapt military lifestyle and was targeted for his inability to perform quality maintenance on his own.  He states that he started received disciplinary actions in tech school for making mistakes and was threatened with discharge if he made any additional but was allowed to graduate.  Due to the disciplinary actions he received in tech school, he believes that this negatively impacted his leadership’s view on him.  He contends that he had medical issues that show why he was having issues with tardiness and why his job was difficult for him to perform to physically perform, which ultimately played a significant role in his discharge.  He was granted a change in his shift work and unit, which helped reduce his tardiness and paperwork.  However, he was returned to the previous squadron and states that the leadership was constantly looking for him to make minor infractions due to his previous issues.  The applicant notes that an Article 15 was presented to him for an issue at work but was dropped when he went to seek legal counsel and all the facts were given to his chain.  He believes that his service was Honorable throughout his career and the vast majority of his disciplinary actions stemmed from his medical issues.  He is seeking the upgrade to use his G.I. Bill and to continue to move himself forward in his life.

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.  However, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.  The board also took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, awards and decorations, and other accomplishments.  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.  The board 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 14 Apr 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)