AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2019-00808	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 30 Aug 18 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General for Misconduct (Minor Infractions).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.  The board was conducted on 24 Mar 20.  

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/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, 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 five Letters of Reprimand, and five Letters of Counseling.  His misconduct included: destruction of military property, failure to maintain military bearing when addressed by a Non-Commissioned Officer; dereliction of duty; made inappropriate comments to female airman; failure to go at prescribed time to appointed place of duty (x3); with intent to deceive, made a false official statement; failure to pass multiple room inspections; and made unprofessional comments to other airmen. 

The applicant contended the discharge was improper because the disciplinary actions he received were unjust and incorrect.  The applicant insists that he was not guilty of the accusations that resulted in disciplinary actions, and believes that his supervisor made them up.  He believes the disciplinary actions were then used to build a case, and he was subsequently discharged.  The applicant is requesting a change to the reenlistment eligibility code in order to return to military service.

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 23 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)