AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2021-00633	
					
GENERAL:  The applicant was discharged on 14 January 2021 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge for a Pattern of Misconduct.  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 3 March 2022.  

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 upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable and to change the discharge narrative reason.  The DRB also voted unanimously to deny changing the reenlistment eligibility code.

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 contended the discharge was inequitable and improper because he was falsely accused of sexual assault which launched an investigation against him that lasted approximately 13 months.  He also contended his leadership told him after the investigation and punishment were complete he’d be allowed to re-enlist.  Based on this he accepted an Article 15 for inappropriate relationships, as well as other various infractions and was issued a Letter of Reprimand for sexual assault which led to an administrative discharge board.  He asserted the board originally retained him and recommended probation and rehabilitation to which was not an authorized outcome.  The decision of the board was reversed and the recommendation was he be discharged with a UOTHC and be granted probation and rehabilitation.  Therefore, he contended the recommendation of the board should have been followed, and that out of bias against him, his unit chose to ignore it.   

A review of the applicant’s record revealed he was accused of sexually assaulting one of his subordinate Airmen.  He was also accused of having several unprofessional relationships and conversations with other Airmen he supervised.  He was punished under Article 15 for the unprofessional relationships with his subordinate as well as the other inappropriate behavior.  He was also was issued a Letter of Reprimand for sexual assault which established the basis for an administrative discharge hearing.  Additionally, he voluntarily extended his separation date to have more time to present his case at an administrative discharge board.  

The board recommended the applicant be retained and he be offered probation and rehabilitation, a finding/recommendation that was legally inconsistent and not authorized in accordance with applicable regulations.  Therefore, the Board’s Legal Advisor re-convened the board and instructed the members on the legal procedure for the board to recommend probation and rehabilitation.  The board re-issued their findings/recommendation, recommending a UOTHC and probation and rehabilitation.  

The DRB found the applicant’s contention without merit.  In accordance with procedural guidance the Separation Authority is not compelled to accept a discharge board’s findings and/or recommendation.  The DRB determined the Separation Authority acted within his discretion when he chose to not accept the board’s recommendation and denied the applicant’s probation and rehabilitation.  Therefore, the DRB found no evidence that the discharge was improper.

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 8 March 2022.  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)