AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00018	
					
SUMMARY: 

The applicant was discharged on 31 October 2018 in accordance with AFI 36-3209 with a General Discharge for Misconduct/Moral/Professional Dereliction-Other Serious or Recurrent Conduct. The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code.

The applicant was represented by counsel.    

The applicant requested the board be completed based on a records only review.

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. 

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 a Letter of Reprimand.  His misconduct included:  While on title 10 orders, were in violation of Art 133, Conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman and Art 134, Fraternization. Additionally, the member displayed inappropriate and excessive behavior by overusing alcohol in a public place. 

The applicant through counsel contended that the discharge was improper and inequitable. They stated that the applicant understood his behavior was perceived as unprofessional and regrets drinking on the night in question, however, they felt that the level of speculation and assassination of his character should not be relied on when holding someone responsible for behavior that cannot be substantiated.  The applicant and counsel requested an upgrade to the character of his discharge on the basis that it was disproportionally harsh.

The applicant through counsel brought forth the following issues:  
•	There were several individuals that were present on that night that were never interviewed by investigators. 
•	After being reissued the LOR for the incident in order to give the opportunity for a rebuttal, they stated that he was not provided a copy of the OSI report in order to properly prepare such rebuttal. 
•	The member stated he was told he could submit a resignation in lieu of the separation board. They explained that the resignation was submitted however, with just a few out-processing appointments left, he was told that he must face the separation board. 
•	The board moved locations which limited witness availability and instead had to have the witnesses submit character letters. They stated that not having them in person was highly prejudicial to the member. 
•	The character witnesses that were going to speak in favor of the member decided not to because of the fear of retaliation.

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. The General discharge is consistent with the applicant’s behavior and the member did not present sufficient evidence to indicate otherwise. Therefore, the Board deemed the discharge received by the applicant to be appropriate. 

Additionally, the Board considered the factors laid out in the attachment to the Under Secretary of Defense memorandum, Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations, dated 25 June 2018, known as the “Wilkie Memo.”  The Board considered the factors listed in paragraphs (6)(a)-(6)(l) of this memorandum, and concluded the following with regard this factor: 

j.  Similarly situated Service members sometimes receive disparate punishments.  A Service member in one location could face court-martial for an offense that routinely is handled administratively across the Service. While a court-martial or a command would be within its authority to choose a specific disposition forum or issue a certain punishment, DRBs should nevertheless consider uniformity and unfair disparities in punishments as a basis for relief. 

The board felt that the discharge received was not disparate in comparison to similarly situated service members. The conduct of the applicant during service was unacceptable, especially during a deployment. The board determined that the discharge the applicant received was appropriate. 

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 or 3K.
 
CONCLUSION:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service, service/medical record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was proper. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain “General”, the narrative reason for separation shall remain “Misconduct/Moral/Professional Dereliction-Other Serious or Recurrent Conduct. The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 7 May 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  
Instructions on how to appeal an AFDRB decision can be found at 
https://afrbaportal.azurewebsites.us

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief (Applicant Only)