AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	.. -

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

-	-	- -
x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORCANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

MEMBER SIITING

HON

GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

A67.10

1  ORDER 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  APPFARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEAIU NC DATE	CASE   l\1JMll£R

19 Jul 2013	FD-2013-00212

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.

-	SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL

p    ',   " '

-  - -     -	-	'	•  v	- ; ;;;.

' , I	'   ., •	,	•	.	•	•	,	"-,•     '.',	,   ,, ,,.; .: )l:;j·
PROM:

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

AIR fORCE DISOIARCE RJIVl.EW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WlNC,3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 2070-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00212	

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.

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: The applicant was discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for minor disciplinary infractions. The applicant contends the evidence used to justify his discharge was based on biases and leadership harassment and incompetence, which resulted in his discharge through malicious prosecution. The record indicates the applicant received two Article l 5s and two Letters of Reprimand. His misconduct included gossiping about sexual activity between two fellow airman, harassed and bullied class mates, which created a hostile work environment, failure to go to duty on time, disrespectful language to a Non-Commissioned  Officer and a Senior Non-Commissioned  Officer, violated AETCI 36-2216 by possessing personal cell phone during duty day while in uniform, with intent to deceive made false official statement to Senior Non-Commissioned  Officer, observed wearing reflective belt around neck, failure to use proper reporting procedures while addressing Senior Non-Commissioned  Officer, and failure to refrain from
possessing test materials outside the testing area. The Board opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his behavior.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.   The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.

Although not specifically stated, applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes he made when he was young. The DRB recognized the applicant was 21 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 older than 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.

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