[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 32, Volume 6]
[Revised as of July 1, 2005]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 32CFR865.120]

[Page 194-196]
 
                        TITLE 32-NATIONAL DEFENSE
 
                CHAPTER VII--DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
 
PART 865_PERSONNEL REVIEW BOARDS--Table of Contents
 
               Subpart B_Air Force Discharge Review Board
 
Sec. 865.120  Discharge review standards.

    (a) Objective of review. The objective of a discharge review is to 
examine the propriety and equity of the applicant's discharge and to 
effect changes, if necessary. The standards of review and the underlying 
factors which aid in determining whether the standards are met shall be 
historically consistent with criteria for determining honorable service. 
No factors shall be established which require automatic change or denial 
of a change in a discharge. Neither the DRB nor the Secretary of the Air 
Force shall be bound by any methodology of weighing of the factors in 
reaching a determination. In each case, the DRB or Secretary of the Air 
Force

[[Page 195]]

shall give full, fair, and impartial consideration to all applicable 
factors prior to reaching a decision. An applicant may not receive a 
less favorable discharge than that issued at the time of separation. 
This does not preclude correction of clerical errors.
    (b) Propriety. A discharge shall be deemed to be proper unless in 
the course of discharge review, it is determined that:
    (1) There exists an error of fact, law, procedures, or discretion 
associated with the discharge at the time of issuance; and that the 
rights of the applicant were prejudiced thereby (such error shall 
constitute prejudicial error, if there is substantial doubt that the 
discharge would have remained the same if the error had not been made); 
or
    (2) A change in policy by the Air Force made expressly retroactive 
to the type of discharge under consideration, requires a change in the 
discharge.
    (c) When a record associated with the discharge at the time of 
issuance involves a matter in which the primary responsibility for 
corrective action rests with another organization (for example, another 
Board, agency, or court), the DRB will recognize an error only to the 
extent that the error has been corrected by the organization with 
primary responsibility for correcting the record.
    (d) The primary function of the DRB is to exercise its discretion on 
issues of equity by reviewing the individual merits of each application 
on a case-by-case basis. Prior decisions in which the DRB exercised its 
discretion to change a discharge based on issues of equity (including 
the factors cited in such decisions or the weight given to factors in 
such decisions) do not blind the DRB in its review of subsequent cases 
because no two cases present the same issues of equity.
    (e) The following applies to applicants who received less than fully 
honorable administrative discharges because of their civilian misconduct 
while in an inactive reserve component and who were discharged or had 
their discharge reviewed on or after April 20, 1971: the DRB shall 
either recharacterize the discharge to honorable without any additional 
proceedings or additional proceedings shall be conducted in accordance 
with the Court's Order of December 3, 1981, in Wood v. Secretary of 
Defense to determine whether proper grounds exist for the issuance of a 
less than honorable discharge, taking into account that:
    (1) An Under Other Than Honorable (formerly Undesirable) Discharge 
for an inactive reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct 
found to have affected directly the performance of military duties;
    (2) A General Discharge for an inactive reservist can only be based 
upon civilian misconduct found to have had an adverse impact on the 
overall effectiveness of the military, including military morale and 
efficiency.
    (f) The following applies to applicants who received less than fully 
honorable administrative discharges (between June 21, 1971 and March 2, 
1982) because evidence developed by or as a direct result of complusory 
urinalysis testing was introduced in the discharge proceedings. 
Applicants who believe they are members of the above category will so 
indicate this by writing ``CATEGORY W'' in block 7 of their DD Form 293. 
AFMPC/MPCDOA1 will expedite processing these applications to the 
designated ``CATEGORY W'' reviewer. For class members the designated 
reviewer shall either recharacterize the discharge to honorable without 
any additional proceedings or complete a review to determine whether 
proper ground exists for the issuance of a less than honorable 
discharge. If the applicant is determined not to be a class member, the 
application is returned to normal review procedure channels. If new 
administrative proceedings are initiated, the former service member must 
be notified of:
    (1) The basis of separation other than drug abuse or use or 
possession of drugs based upon compelled urinalysis that was specified 
in the commander's report and upon which the Air Force now seeks to base 
a less than honorable discharge.
    (2) The full complement of procedural protections that are required 
by current regulations.
    (3) Name, address and telephone number of an Area Defense Counsel 
with

[[Page 196]]

whom the former service member has a right to consult, and
    (4) The right to participate in the new proceedings to be conducted 
at the Air Force base nearest the former service member's current 
address, or to elect to maintain his or her present character of 
discharge.
    (g) Equity. A discharge shall be deemed to be equitable unless:
    (1) In the course of a discharge review, it is determined that the 
policies and procedures under which the applicant was discharged differ 
in material respects from policies and procedures currently applicable 
on a service-wide basis to discharges of the type under consideration 
provided that:
    (i) Current policies or procedures represent a substantial 
enhancement of the rights afforded an applicant in such proceedings; and
    (ii) There is substantial doubt that the applicant would have 
received the same discharge if relevant current policies and procedures 
had been available to the applicant at the time of the discharge 
proceedings under consideration.
    (2) At the time of issuance, the discharge was inconsistent with 
standards of discipline in the Air Force; or
    (3) In the course of a discharge review, it is determined that a 
change is warranted based upon consideration of the applicant's military 
record and other evidence presented to the DRB viewed in conjunction 
with the factors listed in this section and the regulations under which 
the applicant was discharged, even though the discharge was determined 
to have been otherwise equitable and proper at the time of issuance. 
Areas of consideration include, but are not limited to:
    (i) Quality of Service, as evidenced by factors such as:
    (A) Service History, including date of enlistment, period of 
enlistment, highest rank achieved, conduct or efficiency ratings 
(numerical or narrative).
    (B) Awards and decorations.
    (C) Letters of commendation or reprimand.
    (D) Combat service.
    (E) Wounds received in action.
    (F) Record of promotions and demotions.
    (G) Level of responsibility at which the applicant served.
    (H) Other acts of merit that may not have resulted in a formal 
recognition through an award or commendation.
    (I) Length of service during the period which is the subject of the 
discharge review.
    (J) Prior military service and type of discharge received or 
outstanding post-service conduct to the extent that such matters provide 
a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the 
applicant during the period of service which is the subject of the 
discharge review.
    (K) Convictions by court-martial.
    (L) Record of non-judicial punishment.
    (M) Convictions by civil authorities while a member of the Air 
Force, reflected in the discharge proceedings or otherwise noted in 
military records.
    (N) Record of periods of unauthorized absence.
    (O) Records relating to a discharge in lieu of court-martial.
    (ii) Capability to Serve, as evidenced by factors such as:
    (A) Total Capabilities. This includes an evaluation of matters such 
as age, educational level, and aptitude scores. Consideration may also 
be given to whether the individual met normal military standards of 
acceptability for military service and similar indicators of an 
individual's ability to serve satisfactorily, as well as ability to 
adjust to the military service.
    (B) Family/Personal Problems. This includes matters in extenuation 
or mitigation of the reason for discharge that may have affected the 
applicant's ability to serve satisfactorily.
    (C) Arbitrary or Capricious Actions. This includes actions by 
individuals in authority which constitute a clear abuse of such 
authority and which, although not amounting to prejudicial error, may 
have contributed to the decision to discharge or to the characterization 
of service.
    (D) Discrimination. This includes unauthorized acts as documented by 
records or other evidence.

[[Page 197]]