AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2020-00701	
					
The applicant was discharged on 16 Aug 16 in accordance with AFI 36-3209 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge for Misconduct/Moral/Professional Dereliction-Other serious or recurrent Misconduct.  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 applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference on 23 Feb 21.  Three witnesses were present and testified on the applicant’s behalf.  

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 2 to 1 to approve the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable and to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority. It voted unanimously to deny a change to the reenlistment eligibility code to 2C / 3K.

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 states that in the rejection from DRB, the Board claimed that they believed the discharge was proper while at the same time claiming that they did not have any of the documents related to his discharge. He states that the board only had a record of his 10 years of service-that he had met or exceeded all requirements/expectations of the USAF/ORANG. He states that a professional responsibility inquiry was a result of his separation board based on a complaint of inadequate representation. This report substantiated his claim on inadequate representation and several other deficiencies within the separation board process. 

CONCLUSION:  
The Board found neither the evidence of record, nor that provided by the applicant substantiated any inequity.  However, sufficient evidence existed to convince the Board the discharge was improper due to errors in discretion by his Defense Counsel whereby the rights of the applicant were prejudiced.  In this respect the Board notes the Inquiry Officer’s Report dated May 10, 2019 provided by the applicant, substantiated that his appointed legal counsel made a variety of errors and several other deficiencies were discovered during his discharge board and, but for these discrepancies, the Board believes there is substantial doubt that the discharge would have remained the same if these errors had not been made.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall characterization of the applicant’s service was more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the discharge narrative reason was more accurately described as “Secretarial Authority.”  The Board did not change the reenlistment eligibility code.    

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 17 Mar 21.  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)