AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVI EW BOARD HEARING RECORD

Ni\ l\IE Of SERVI CE MEi\ IBER (LAST, FrnST l\llDOU: INITIAL)

GRADE

X	RECORD REVIEW

AFSN/SSAN

\'ES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORCAN 17 \TIO:-O OF COUSEL

VOTE 01'TllE llOAllO

MEMBER  SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTl lC

OTl lER	DENY
x x x x
x

A67. 10

F.X lll Bff S SlJB:Vll'ITEO TO THE BOAHD
ORDER APPOI NTI G Tl II BOARD
2   APPL.IC:\TION FOR REVIEW or DIS('ll,\RGE
3   LEHER OF NOTIFIC,\ IION
4  BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILI'
COUNSEL'S REL EASE 10TlIC 13CMRO
AOOlTIONAL rx 1 llHITS SUBM Ill FD Al 1 11\ IE Of
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
·1f\PI' RECORDI G OF PERSONAL Al'l'l:t\R \ 1CE JIEJ\Rll\G

UEARINC oxn:	( \ r 'I \llU'.R

15 Oct 2014	FD-20 14-00101
APPi ICA\;T S ISllE Al\D TllC OOARD'SDEC'ISIO'IAL RATIONAL[ ARE OISC'I ISSf.D 0 TIIE AITAfl JED AIR FORCE DISC'I IARGE REVIEW OOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard  in  Wash i ngton, D.C.

Ad vise appliL:ant of the deL:isiun u f 1he Board, 1hc right 10 a persona l appearance wi th/withou1 L:ou11sel, and 1he right 10 submil an applica1ion 10 1he A FBCM R.

Names and votes wi ll be made ava ila ble to the appl icant at the applicant's request.

TO:

SAF MRBR
550 C Sl REET \VEST. SU ITE -lO
RANDOi Pl I AFl1.·1X 78 I 50--l7.12

INOORSF.ME 'T

FROi\I:

- -	-
DATE: 10/20/2014

!)t:lKt:. IAK\ Ot Itit..1\IK f'Ot« t.. Pt.i-0,0i't.1.. ( Ul!\( IL
,\IR  t'ORCC  OI SCll IRCt  Rf,1'1£11 80ARO
1535 C01M,.\1\D OR U:\\ INC.JIUl FtOOM
,\  OR£\\S t\FB. /I.ID 20762·700 1

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FOR CE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE   li\IBER

FD-2014-00101	

GEN ERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) but decl ined and requests that the review be completed based on the avai lable service record.

The attached brier contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FIN DING : The Board denies the upgrade of the d ischarge.
ISSUE: Applican t recei ved a General discharge for Miscond uct -Minor Disci pl inary Infractions.

The Ai r Force Discha rge Review Board, under i ts responsibility to exam ine the propriety and equ i ty of an Appl icant's discharge, i s authorized to change the character of servi ce and the reason tor discharge if such change i s warran ted. I n reviewi ng discharges, the Board presu mes regula ri ty i n the conduct of governmental affairs u nless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presum ption, to incl ude evidence submitted by t he appl ican t. The Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the discharge met the perti nent standards of equity and propriety. The Appl icant 's record of  service  incl uded  one  Article  1 5,  one  Letter  or Reprimand  and  two  Letters  of Ad monishment. H is misconduct included operat ion of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. being intoxicated on duty, second failure of a fitness assessment and smoking i n an unauthori zed area.

Appl icant contends t he d ischarge was ineq uitable clue to the harsh level of the actions taken against him. The appl icant cited that he had applied for separation u nder a force shaping program that was being offered at the time. The mem ber had mul tiple incident s of miscond uct prior to the force shaping separat ion bei ng
approved, which led to his discharge.  An unapproved package for separation docs not stop discharge actions from bei ng processed.  The characterization of the discharge received by the appl icant was found to be appropriate. Th e Boa rd reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of im propriety or i nequity to
warra n t an u pgrade of the d ischarge.

CONCLUSI ON: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the d ischarge was consisten t with the procedural and substant ive requirements of the discha rge regulation and was wi thi n the discretion of the d ischarge authori ty and the applicant was provided fu ll administ rati ve due process.

I n view of the foregoi ng find i ngs, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discha rge and determi nes the discharge should remai n unchanged.

Attach ment:
Exa miner's Brief