AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

 FD-2022-00285 	
					
SUMMARY:  The applicant was discharged on 3 August 2020 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with a General discharge for Misconduct (Serious Offense).  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization.

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 an Article 15 for larceny of government property.

Through counsel, the applicant contended his discharge was inequitable and improper.  In regard to propriety, the applicant contended his chain of command made an error of discretion by discharging him with a General service characterization given the fact the Air Force failed to give him an adequate opportunity for probation and rehabilitation.  Furthermore, the chain of command was too harsh given the totality of the circumstances and falsely determined the applicant would not likely respond positively if given a second chance, despite the fact he had been an exemplary Airman throughout his entire career.

In regard to equity, the applicant contented he has been improperly stigmatized and harmed by his General service characterization and he has been deprived of his honor and good name based on this one-time incident of misconduct.  The applicant claimed that although he has been unfairly prejudiced because of his discharge he has excelled in the civilian world and has put the skills he learned in the Air Force to good use for his current employer.  The applicant further claimed he has proven that he has led a successful, positive, and exemplary life before and after his discharge and the fact that he will forever be plagued by a General discharge is a stain on his character that will cause him to suffer a material injustice to his honor.  

A review of the applicant’s record revealed he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for stealing ammunition from his unit.  He was discovered to have loose rounds on his person and another box of ammunition was also found in his privately owned vehicle.  He claimed in his response to the Article 15 action that he put the loose rounds in his pocket at the shooting range and inadvertently forgot to turn them in at the end of the shooting session.  He claimed to have no knowledge about the box of ammunition that was discovered in his vehicle.  During the investigation, an Airman in the unit reported the applicant said he took ammunition from the unit all the time.  The applicant claimed someone else, potentially this same Airman, may have planted the ammunition in his vehicle.

The DRB concluded, given the applicant was a Security Forces Airman, he had extensive training on proper ammunition handling.  Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record, nor did the applicant provide any evidence to corroborate his contentions.  Although the applicant contended he should have been offered probation and rehabilitation, it is within the command’s authority to not grant this relief if they determine it is not warranted or justified.  Therefore, the DRB determined the administrative actions taken by the chain of command in this case were proper and equitable given the totality of the circumstances and the board concluded the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions he made during his Air Force career. 

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable.  The DRB also voted unanimously to deny changing the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority and changing 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, the narrative reason for separation, and the reentry code shall not change.  The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 27 September 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)