AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

x	PERSONAL APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

X*+ X*+

ISSUES

A94.56

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

x	*+
x	*+
x	*+

1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2   APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3  LETTER 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 APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

12 Dec 2013	FD-2012-00306

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 RE CODE

ETARIAL . .--- - -

 	

TO:

FROM:

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD 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-2012-00306	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to  change  the  reason  and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Andrews AFB on 12 December 2013.

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

FINDING: The Board approves the upgrade  of the service characterization from General to Honorable; however the change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are denied. The Board grants the requested relief in part.

ISSUE: Applicant contends the discharge principally on grounds of inequity, and to the extent that several of the underlying adverse actions were concerned, impropriety. The applicant conceded that a basis  for discharge under 36-3208, para 5.49 may have existed; however the forum selection for the adverse actions leading up to discharge were unduly harsh, and ultimately the decision to discharge him was unduly harsh and therefore inequitable. He believes he should have been permitted to serve his complete term  of enlistment, and as such requests that the RE code and narrative reason also be changed in addition to the service characterization.

The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15's and a Summary Court-Martial Conviction. These formed the basis for the discharge action.  The applicant concedes that some of the misconduct captured within the adverse actions occurred; however he contends that these were the appropriate forum. Specifically he argues that he was not provided with access to counsel for the first Article 15, and that the charge was legally insufficient.  He believed that the misconduct upon which the Article 15 was predicated should have been a Letter of Counseling at most, which would not have generated a UIF.  He contends that the second Article 15, which was for failure to salute a lieutenant, was unduly harsh, further evidenced by the fact that he received only a reprimand within the Article 15. Finally, he notes that he only pled guilty to and was subsequently convicted of failing to maintain positive control of his weapon when he left it in the vehicle with his partner.

The DRB noted that the misconduct, even as presented by the applicant, formed an adequate basis for discharge in accordance with the AFI; and that both Article 15's and the Summary Court Martial appeared to be legally sufficient.  Therefore the discharge and service characterization were proper.  The DRB did however believe that the discharge of the applicant was inequitable.  When considering the nature of the offenses, the DRB did not believe that they rose to a level commensurate with the type of misconduct typically used to support a misconduct based discharge with a General service characterization; however the offenses were minor misconduct reduced to writing as required by the basis in para 5.49 of the AFI,  rendering the RE code and narrative reason proper.

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

However,  in view  of the  foregoing  findings, the Board  concludes  that  the overall  quality of applicant's	

service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief