AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSNISSAN

X	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORCANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

A94.S5 A93.21

A67.10

IORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LEITER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEA.RANCE HEARING

ll£ARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

02 Aug 2013	FD-2012-00287

Case heard in 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.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB,TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY 01'THEA.JR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCii. AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ISJS COMMAND DR,EE WING,JRJl FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762- 7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2012-00287	

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

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He believes that both his medical condition and conflict with his chain of command contributed to his misconduct. The records indicated the applicant received three Article 15s, one Letter of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseling. His misconduct included failed to be present for dorm inspection, failed dorm inspection, failed to go to mandatory PT on time, disrespect to a NCO, failed to go to duty on time on several occasions, violated medical profile, violated commander's order to attend mandatory memorial service for fallen airman,
disobeyed order from CMSgt not to move out of the dorm, failed to wear proper footwear with service dress, and failed to refrain from using government travel card for personal use.  After a complete and thorough review of the records and the documentation provided by the applicant, the Board found no evidence that the applicant's medical condition contributed to his misconduct.  Additionally, the record did not support his contention that his chain of command acted inequitably or improperly regarding his discharge.   The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his  negative behavior.   The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and 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