AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAM l:OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIOOLEINITIA L)	GRADE	AFSN/SSA'I
(b) (6)	(b) (6)
TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NA IE OF COUNSEi, ANO OR OKGANIZ.ITION	ADDRESS AND ORORGAN17 ITION ot·COUNSE i.
YES	No
x
VOTE OF TILE DOA RO
MEMBER   SITTING	llON	GEN	UOTllC	OTllER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
x x x
x
ISSUES	A94.53	INOfX  NlM8£R	A67.90	EXHIBITS SU6Ml1T EI) TO TllE BOAlW
I ORDER A PPOINTING TllE BOARD
AP PLICATION FOR Rf:VIEW OF DISCHA RGF
LETrER OF NO'lIFICATION
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO Tl IE BOARD
ADDfflONAL EXHIBITS SUBM ITrED AT TIME OF PERSONA i.APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANC E IIEA RING

11£A Rl\?C OA'l'E	r ISi'.  11\lll ER

26 Feb 2015	FD-2014-00446
APPLICANT"S issur ANO TIIE BOARD"S DECISIONAL RATlONALE ARE DIS('lJSSED ON TUE ATTACllED AIR roRCE DISCllARGE REVIEW BOARD DE('ISIONAL RATIO'llAU.

Case heard in Wash ington, D.C.

Adv i:se applicant or the dt:cision of the Board, the right to a persona l appearance with/withou t counsel, and the right  to submi t an application  to the AFBCMR.

b) (6)

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUl\IBER

FD-2014-00446	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) 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 appl icant received a General discharge for Misconduct - Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipli ne

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under i ts 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 governmenta l affa i rs unless there is substantial cred ible evidence to rebut the presumption,  to  incl ude evidence submitted  by the applicant.   The Board  completed  a thorough  review of the circumstances that  Jed to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the discharge met the pe11inent standards of equity and propriety. The applicant's record of service included one Article  15 for failure  to obey  an order  from  an NCO and sleeping on duty; four Letters of Repri mands for failure to go to duty on time (x2), failure to pass CDC pre-test , failure to wear correct boots and failure to  have  shined  boots  on.  He  also  received  five Records of Counseli ng for failure to go to duty on time (x2), failure to pass shop pre-test, failure to obey SNCO and reporti ng to work unshaven.

The member made no contentions of impropriety or inequi ty. The applica nt cited his desire to recei ve the
G.I. Bi ll benefi ts as justification  for upgrade.  The ORB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefi ts, he signed a statement (DD Fonn 2366, on September  1 1 , 2002) that he understood he must recei ve
an Honorable discharge to recei ve 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 inequ i ty or impropriety which wou ld warrant an upgrade.

A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the Board can establ ish 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, reason for the discha rge or the reenlistment code.

CONCLUS ION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was  consistent  with  the proced ural and substant ive requ irements of the discharge regulation , was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrat ive 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 determi nes the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Exami ner's Brief