AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

ST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

ONAL APPEARANCE

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY

X*+

X*+ X*+ X+
X*+

A67.10

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 SUBMfITED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARIN G DATE	CASE NUMBER

Ol Aug 2013	FD-2013-00310

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.

+ CHANGE RE CODE

TO:

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSOHNEL COUNOL AIR FORCE DISCHARGEREVIEW BOARD
15>5 COMMAND DR, EE WING. JRDFLOOR
ANDREWS AFB. MD 10761-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00310	

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 grants the requested relief.

Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received one Article 15 and one Letter of Reprimand.  His misconduct included broke phase, entered permanent party living quarters, provided alcohol to individuals under 21, and consumption of alcohol in student dorm.  While the Board in no way condones the applicant's misconduct, they determined, based on the evidence in the records, that there were a number of mitigating factors  involved in the incidents.  The applicant graduated from technical training on 3 September 1997, however remained in a student status for an additional eight months, pending a decision on his medical status.  A condition that was properly disclosed prior to his enlistment.  In response to his Article 15, he stated that being in a permanent student status he felt crippled emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically not having  an opportunity for career advancement. Additionally, on 29 Apr 1998 the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder.  The Board concluded there was sufficient mitigation and extenuation to substantiate relief.  Additionally, the Board agreed to change the applicant's reason and authority and reenlistment code.

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