AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-202-00177	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 20 Dec 2018 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a(n) Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge for Misconduct (Serious Offense).  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 28 Apr 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, to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority and to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 2C.

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 multiple Article 15’s, Letters of Counseling and Records of Individual Counseling.  His misconduct included:  willfully failing to refrain from consuming alcohol underage, derelict in performance, absence from mandatory PT, failed to maintain appearance standards and proper reporting, carrying unauthorized item while marching and numerous failed room inspections.

The applicant and counsel contends that the discharge was inequitable/improper.  They state that the applicant’s was alleged to be in a sexual relationship with a minor. This was reported to school officials and an investigation was initiated.  He was arrested and served time prior to the discharge proceedings followed suit.  Counsel contends impropriety due to the command making errors in fact & discretion regarding his discharge.  The applicant maintained his innocence on the allegation however, the embarrassment & shame of the accusation caused the applicant to lose hope and will to fight the discharge.  A witness states that the allegation was false and was due to an unfortunate story made up.  They state that local police dismissed the case since there was no truth to the allegations and was dismissed through an Order for Nolle Prosequi.  They state that the sexual assault should not have been a basis for his discharge due to the order and should not have moved forward with the discharge prior to the final disposition of the civilian case.  They contend inequity because the applicant was unfairly demonized for the heinous accusations against him that were discovered to be completely fabricated.  The applicant should not continue to be punished by being stigmatized by his current characterization. 

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 applicant’s misconduct was a significant departure from the conduct expected of all military members.  

If the applicant can provide additional information such as providing civilian evidence 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 11 May 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)