AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2020-00187	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 13 Feb 2017 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a(n) General discharge for Misconduct (Other).  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 12 May 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 several Letters of Reprimand and Counseling.  His misconduct included:  failure to maintain professionalism, soliciting several women on divers occasions to engage in sexual acts in exchange for services/money with no intent to pay, secretly recording/taking nude photographs without consent and/or with no intent to pay, apprehended for being under suspicion and contacting a minor with the intent to commit a sexual offense.

The applicant and counsel contend that the discharge was inequitable/improper.  They state that the discharge was improper because the applicant was not given the opportunity to rehabilitate.  When he was given his second LOR, he was not given any suggestions of rehabilitative measures and was instead notified of his discharge, which prejudiced the rights of the applicant.  They contend for the board to consider equity due to the applicant’s quality of service, personal hardships at the time of the misconducts and post-service actions.  The applicant was dealing with the news of a family member being diagnosed with cancer and since he was unable to travel and be with ailing family member, he turned to alcohol for escape, which explains his statements he made to a female at a restaurant and was arrested/convicted for.  In the applicant’s statement, he insists that he denied the Article 15’s and trial by court martial since there were no charges to go with the disciplinary actions. He contends that he does not recall making inappropriate comments to the women in question and that he did not have a chance to questions his accusers but realized that he did not always treat the women around him with dignity and respect.  Since his discharge, he is currently taking courses and has a stable job.  The applicant has grown and developed his character since his discharge and asks for the upgrade.

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 DRB was pleased to see the applicant has been successful since leaving the Air Force.  The board reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant any changes to the discharge.  It found the seriousness of the applicant’s willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of his service.  

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 13 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)