AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE GEN	PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND ORORGl\J'llZATION

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATIO!< OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

ISSUES

i
i
l
j
l
I
l	
A93.01
A93.33 A94.05

ORDER APPOfNTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4  BRIEF OF PERSONNEL flLE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

X*+ X*+
X*+

X*+ X*+

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARlNG

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

19 Jul 2013

FD-2012-00356

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.

*Narrative Reason and Authority
+ RE Code

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

SECRETARY OFTHE AIR fORCE PERSONl'l'EL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RDFLOOR ANDREWS AFB,MD 2G'762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2012-00356	

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 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 request for the upgrade of the discharge, to change the reason and authority for discharge, and to change the reenlistment code are denied.

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

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and would like a second chance to serve his country in the United States military.  He believes he was targeted by his supervisor and states he was not offered time and proper representation to fight his discharge.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, nine Letters of Reprimand, and five Letters of Counseling.  His misconduct included failed to obey an order from a SNCO (2x), failed to maintain sufficient funds to meet financial obligations, failed to go to duty on time (6x), failed to obey order from supervisor (2x), compromised position while posted as gate sentry, cheated on CDC unit review, possessed unauthorized reading material while on post, attempted to receive free meal by making false annotation on AF Form 2039, failed to maintain dorm room standards on several occasion, with intent to deceive made false official statement, failed to maintain personal appearance, and used disrespectful language towards supervisor.  After a complete and thorough review of the applicants records the Board found the applicants contentions to have no merit.  The Board opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  There was no evidence to support the applicant was being targeted.
Additionally,  he was properly referred to the Area Defense Council on 6 December 2006 and provided a written statement regarding his discharge on 10 December 2002.  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.

Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 20 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was the same age as the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

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.

Inview 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