AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2020-00008	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 13 Feb 2013 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a(n) Honorable discharge for Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code. The board was conducted on 7 April 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 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 change the discharge narrative reason and to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 3K. The DRB found the applicant was discharged with an Honorable characterization and there was no need to consider his characterization change request. The DRB is unable to change an administrative discharge to a medical discharge to allow him to receive full medical benefits for the condition he was discharged for. 

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 one Article 15.  His misconduct included: stealing money from another Airman. 

The applicant contended the discharge was inequitable because all the medical paperwork processed through MEPS and other agencies reflected he did not have a history of migraines or injuries for a period of three years or more prior to his enlistment. He received an erroneous code during BMT and his service records were incorrectly coded.  He would like to have his reenlistment code be removed or either re-instated to be able to reenlist without restrictions or to allow him to receive full medical benefits due to the erroneous medical information used to discharge him.

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 7 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)