AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARfNG RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FJRST MlDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE GEN	X

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	RECORD REVIEW

l!!l '!il 5! ! L ,. NAAI£ OFCOIJNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
YES	llo	(b) (6)
x

ADOR£SSAND OR ORGANl7.ATIONOP COUNSEL

MEMBER SIITCNG

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	^DENY

X*+

x	^*+
x	^*+

(b) (6)	_x

X*+

*+

ISSUES

A67.IO

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

1  ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPUCATION FOR REVCEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTCFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TOTHE BOARD
ADDITIONA L EXHIBITS SUBMfITED AT TIMEOF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	^CASE ^lllJMJl.ER

19 Nov 2014

FD-2014-00320

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR. Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

* CHANGE NARRATfVE REASON AND AUTHORITY TO SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY
+ CHANGE REENTRY CODE

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781S0-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY or THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CQlll'iOL AIR F'ORCli DISCHARGE REVJCW BOARD
ISJ5 COWAA/11) DR. EE WING. JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB,MD  2076J..7901

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00320

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of the discharge to honorable.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, via video teleconference between Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, and Randolph AFB, Texas, on 19 Nov 2014.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING: The Board grants the upgrade of the discharge to Honorable, but a change of the reason/authority for discharge and a change of the reenlistment code are denied.

ISSUE: Applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct -Minor Disciplinary Infractions.

The applicant did not contend there were any issues with the propriety and equity of the discharge, but stated it is his desire to serve in the United States Armed Forces again. Given this statement, the Board also considered whether a change to the reason/authority for discharge and a change to the reenlistment code were justified.

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. 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 ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.

The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, two Letters of Reprimand and two Letters of Counseling. His misconduct included underage consumption of alcohol (2x), failure to go to duty on time (2x), failure to complete environmental management systems awareness training, and disrespect towards a Non-commissioned officer. After a complete and thorough review of the records, the Board found that the misconduct took place over a short period and was very minor in nature. The Board favorably considered the applicant's excellent duty history prior to the misconduct and the applicant's deployment to Afghanistan. The Board determined that the negative aspects of the applicant's conduct did not outweigh the positive aspects of the applicant's military record. The Board concluded that the applicant should have been given a chance to rehabilitate and grants an upgrade of the discharge to Honorable. However, the Board believed that the reason for discharge is accurate and the reenlistment code is appropriate--therefore a change is denied.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the overall quality of the applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief