AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
GRADE

X	RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION 01'COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

X*+

x•+

x•+
X*+

ISSUES

A94.06

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

A93.22	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

19 Jul 2013	FD-2013-00325

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:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78J50-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY OFTHE ..UR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535COMMAND DR. l!E 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-2013-00325	

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 Board grants the requested relief.

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

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh based on his medical condition. The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, two Vacation actions, three Letters of Reprimand, three Letters of Counseling, and one Record of Individual Counseling. His misconduct included failed to prepare adequate food for customer, faVed to follow shift change procedures to account for $10.00 cash drawer discrepancy, failed to ensure subordinate had all required documents for readiness inprocessing appointment, failed to go to duty on time (3x), failed to follow procedures for production log, departed without informing management, failed to perform shift change walk around, and slept on duty on diverse occasions (4x). Although the Board does not condone the applicant's misconduct, after a complete and thorough review of the applicant's records, the Board found that 7 of the 11 documented incidents of misconduct could be directly related to the applicant's medical condition. Based on the applicant's 12 years of service and documented medical condition the Board found the discharge to be too harsh and opined the applicant should have been given the opportunity to rehabilitate.

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.

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, the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority, and the reenlistment code changed to 3K under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief