AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2019-00682	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 08 Jun 2018 in accordance with AFI 36-3207 with a(n) General discharge for Unacceptable Conduct.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable and a change to the discharge narrative reason.  The board was conducted on 10 Mar 2020.  

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 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 and to change the discharge narrative reason.

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 a Record of Individual Counseling and several Letters of Admonishment, Reprimand and Counseling.  His misconduct included:  being late, providing false statements, loitering, unauthorized use of previous course materials and unprofessional relationship.

The applicant and counsel contended the discharge was inequitable/improper.  They claim that there were several procedural violations that occurred during the process of the discharge, which warrants the upgrade to Honorable.  They state that the command misapplied the principle of progressive discipline to defend the increased punishment against the applicant.  It is contended that the command issued multiple counseling documents for incidents they were aware of and should have been included in one disciplinary action instead of separating them out.  They note that the command improperly initiated a SIF against the applicant after once incident, which they believe is not in compliance with the applicable instructions and process of the action and led to him being prejudiced with the General discharge.  They also contend that the command denied the applicant due process regarding his discharge by withholding evidence pertinent to the adverse administrative actions of his case.  Counsel states that the commander withheld evidence from him and his legal counsel by not allowing interviews to be conducted and claiming that certain information were classified from the defendant.  The Article 138 Request for Redress was unlawfully delayed to the applicant’s detriment.  The applicant and counsel contend that the commander delayed his response to the Article 138 complaint to allow time for an investigation, that the allegations were all against the commander, negating the need for an investigation, and there is no evidence an investigation actually took place.  The applicant’s pleas for assistance were improperly handled and ignored.  They note that the applicant’s IG, congressional and other forms of complaint were not properly addressed.  Furthermore, the applicant contends he was the victim of reprisal from his commander for filing the complaints.  They also believe that his discharge was because of biased and personal prejudice by his commander regarding his sexual orientation.  While it is admitted that the applicant’s conduct did not always meet standards, his infractions were minor in nature or complete misunderstandings and should not have been considered when issuing punishment or pursuing discharge.  They contend he was punished with an intent to separate and not rehabilitate and based on this, an upgrade to his discharge is warranted.

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 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.
 
If the applicant can provide additional information to substantiate his contentions, the board recommends he exercise the right to make a personal appearance before the DRB or appeal the DRB’s decision to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.    

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 27 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)