AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2020-00064	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 3 Mar 11 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Minor Infractions).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable.  The board was conducted on 28 Jul 20.  

The applicant initially chose to have a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), but due to lack of response from the applicant in regards to scheduling the appearance, the President of the AFDRB authorized to complete its review of the discharge, per DOD 1332.8, E3.2.6.2.  The applicant did not have a prior records only review, therefore, the board deemed him eligible for one.  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.

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, one vacation of suspended nonjudicial punishment, two Letters of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseling.  His misconduct included:  with intent to deceive, made a false official statement to an officer (x2); failure to submit leave requests through LeaveWeb on diverse occasions; failure to follow guidelines for quarters; failure to complete career development course by deadlines; failure to o at time prescribed time to appointed place of duty; failure to meet work requirements, and failure to use chain of command and appointment protocol. 

The applicant contended the discharge was inequitable because he did not receive support from his leadership, and others who made the same mistake were not punished in the same manner.  The applicant states that he made an honest mistake by not completing the official leave request.  He insists that he was punished, while another member of the unit was given the opportunity to correct their mistake in LeaveWeb.  The applicant states that other members of the unit who wanted to separate purposefully misused marijuana and failed physical fitness tests in an effort to separate, were still given opportunities to remain in service.  He insists that he was not permitted to take leave when he was discharged, and was not compensated for his leave when separated.  The applicant is requesting the upgrade in order to gain access to G.I. Bill benefits, and better employment opportunity.  

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire record and found no evidence of the applicant being denied compensation for leave that accrued at the time of separation, and the applicant did not provide evidence to support the contention.  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 understood the applicant’s present service characterization renders him ineligible for the Department of Veteran Affairs education benefits.  However, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.  

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 6 Aug 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)