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 x

ISSUES

A93.23 A93.24 A03.07

II
INDEX NUMBER

I
A61.IO

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

03 Apr 2014	FD-2013-00034

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.

 	

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-2013-00034	

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

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), without counsel, at Andrews AFB on 03 Apr 2014.
The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 1 : Orders appointing the board
Exhibit 2: Application for review of the discharge
Exhibit 3: Notification letter with member's response Exhibit 4: Examiner's brief with supporting documents Exhibit 5: Applicant's contentions
Exhibit 6: Character letters

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. The Board further denies the member's request to change the narrative reason for the discharge and to change the RE Code.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant contended for the first time at his personal appearance that his documented hearing loss caused him to sleep through his alarm, which resulted in his numerous failures to go. The applicant contended that although he was able to hear a particular alarm clock for a certain period of time, eventually his hearing would decline such that he could no longer hear that alarm, thereby requiring him to buy a new, louder alarm clock. The applicant admitted that although he believed at the time that he suffered from hearing loss, he did not raise this issue with his supervisors, or seek accommodations that would assist him in hearing his alarm clock. Moreover, Col (Dr.) XXX, an Occupational Medicine Specialist, was asked to review the applicant's medical records and consult with the Board concerning the degree of the applicant's hearing loss at the time of the misconduct. After reviewing the records, Col XXX opined that the hearing loss was not such that the applicant could not hear the average alarm clock at that time.

Issue 2. Applicant contends that his mental health issues caused his misconduct, and therefore the reason for his discharge should be changed to AFI 36-3208, para. 5.11.9, Mental Disorders, thereby entitling the applicant to an honorable discharge. However, paragraph 5.11 directs that "(d]ischarge under this provision is not appropriate if the airman's record would support discharge for another reason, such as misconduct or unsatisfactory performance. " In  this case, discharge was appropriate under paragraph 5.49, Minor Disciplinary Infractions. Further, the applicant provided no evidence of a causal link between his mental health condition and the documented misconduct.

Issue 3. Applicant contends the discharge was in retaliation from his court-martial acquittal that occurred in