AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00041	
					
SUMMARY:  The applicant was discharged on 15 August 2014 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, via video teleconference using Zoom on 7 June 2022.  No witnesses were present to testify 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. 

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 an Article 15 and a Letter of Reprimand.  His misconduct included:  sleeping on duty, underage drinking, and failure to go.  

Through counsel the applicant requested an upgrade for reasons of propriety, equity, and clemency.  The applicant contended the discharge he received was the result of a significant injustice and clear legal error.  He further contended the applicable Air Force Instructions that were used to justify his separation require reasonable efforts at rehabilitation, and in his case, no efforts at rehabilitation were made.  Based on the character letters that he submitted it was clear the chain of command made a clear error of discretion in discharging him and his discharge was a culmination of a pattern of unequal and disparate treatment.  

Furthermore, the applicant contended that instead of rehabilitation he was sidelined and ostracized as a member of a transition flight where he endured harassment and ridicule and was forced to perform demeaning and, at times, dangerous tasks without proper training or equipment.  The applicant admitted to engaging in one notable disciplinary infraction, underage drinking, however, he claimed the other alleged infractions were handled at a level that were not consistent with normal standards, nor did his peers receive the same treatment for similar misconduct.  

A review of the applicant’s record revealed he had two instances of misconduct in a short time period.  He failed to report to a unit physical training session for which he received a Letter of Reprimand.  A month later he was found sleeping on duty and was punished under Article 15, UCMJ.  In addition to the sleeping on duty charge, he was also charged with an underage drinking incident that occurred the prior year.

In his response to the Article 15, the discharge action, and his live testimony, the applicant claimed he was under investigation for an alleged incident and was removed from training and placed in a transition flight while the investigation was conducted.  He claimed he was ostracized and harassed the entire 10 months he was in this flight.  He further claimed he was put in a leadership position within the flight and demonstrated he could be rehabilitated, overcome his mistakes, and continue to the serve in the Air Force.  Additionally, the available evidence indicates the applicant was found to not have committed the alleged offense he was under investigation for and no further charges were brought against him.  
The DRB determined, through the applicant’s testimony, there were irregularities in the government’s response to the applicant’s misconduct.  It is consistent with military custom and practice to honor sacrifices and achievements, to punish only to the extent necessary, to rehabilitate to the greatest extent possible, and to favor second chances in situations in which individuals have paid for their misdeeds.  Additionally, the evidence revealed other similarly situated Airmen in the unit received less severe punishment than the applicant, therefore, the DRB found the applicant’s discharge was unduly harsh.  Finally, the DRB concluded relief is generally more appropriate for non-violent offenses than for violent offenses, and found the applicant’s misconduct was not egregious enough to warrant the discharge characterization he received.

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to approve the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable.  The DRB also voted unanimously to approve changing the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority and changing the reenlistment eligibility code to 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 inequitable.  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall change to Honorable, the narrative reason for separation shall change to Secretarial Authority, and the reentry code shall change to 3K.  The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 9 June 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)