AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD H EARING  RECORD
NAM E OF SERVICE MEMBER (LA T, FrRST MIDDLE IN ITIAL)	GRADE
{b){6)
TYPE GE	I	PERSONAL APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUSSEL	NA \IE OP 00.\ Sl!L MID OR ORGANIZATION	AODRE.SS A\ 0 OR ORCA\.lZATION OF COUXSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OFTHE BOARD
M EM BER SITTING	110	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
{b){6)	x
x x
x x
ISSUES	A94.0S	INO&X   NUMBEK	A67.IO	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
I ORDER APPO I NTING TllE BOARD
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
BRIEF OF PERSONN EL FILE
COUNSEi 'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHI BITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSO AL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEAR ING

H£ARINC DATE	CASI;\ U\t 8£R

13 May 2015	FD-2014-00334
APPLICA'ITS ISSUE A. OTIIE BOARln DECISIO"AL RATIOSALE AR£ DISCUSSED OSTIIEATTACHED AJll FORCE DISCHARGE lt.EVlEW BOARD DECISIOSAL RATIONALE

Case heard  i n  Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

{b)(6)

L &l\JRS	liATE:    511i/Z0f5	i
TO,	FR0\1:
SAF/M RBR	SECll£TAR\  OFTllEAJR FORCE PERSOSXEL CO   NCIL
AIR FORCE DISC'HA.K CE RE\'IE\\  HOARD
550 C STREET WEST,  UITE 40	IS>5CO\l\IANO DR.EE \\ INC,JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB. TX 78150-4742	ANDR E\\ S Af11.\ 11) 20761-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077,JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00334	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

The applicant was offered  a personal  appearance before the Discharge  Review Board  (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

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

FINDING:  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE: The applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions

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 characterization 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. In order to adhere to Mental Health Amendments to 10 USC 1553, a physician with specialized training on mental health disorders was present  for this board. The applicant's record of service included one Article 15, four Letters of Reprimand and two Letters of Counseling. His misconduct included failure to go to duty on time ( l 2x), having cellphone on maintenance floor, refusing to place cell phone in office as ordered, failure to answer self-test and Unit Review Exercise questions as directed by two NCOs, and failure to report to mandatory study as ordered.

The applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  He stated that he suffered from a condition known as Seasonal Affective Disorder.  He claims that his infractions were directly related to his condition.   After review of the records and advice from the Mental Health Specialist, the DRB found no evidence to support the applicant's claim of mental health issues or that he suffered from any major depressive disorders.  There was no indication that the applicant had any mental health diagnoses that
directly contributed to his misconduct.  The administrative actions taken against the applicant gave ample opportunities for him to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

The applicant also cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits asjustification for upgrade. The ORB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on January 11, 2013) that he understood he must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements. The Board was sympathetic to the impact from the loss of these benefits to the applicant; however, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the Board can establish that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  After a thorough review of the record, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization

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 that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.	

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief