AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
GRAD£	AFSN/SSAN

RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS Al'D OR ORGANIZATI ON or COUNStL

x

MEMBER SlTTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY

x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUM8£R

A67.00

x x x
x

1 ORDER APPOINTING TIJE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARG E
3  LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIMEOF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HtARJ l'IG DATt	CASE NUM BER

24 Oct 2013

FD-2013-00326

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise appl icant 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 wi ll be made available to the applicant at the applicant 's request.

TO·

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB. TX 78 150-4742

StCRETARV OfTllE AIR  FORCE PCRSOl<ElCOUNCIL AIR fORCt DISCHARGE RE VIEW BOA RD
IS.IS COMMA."ID DR.EE WING. JRO FLOOR ANDREWS AFB.MO 111762-1081

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00326	
GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (ORB), without counsel, at Andrews AFB on 24 Oct 2013.

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:   Applicant received a General discharge (Paragraph Unknown).

Applicant contended his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and is requesting an upgrade so that he can clear his record. The records indicate applicant received an Article 15 for failure to properly escort a friend while she was on base and a Vacation of Non-Judicial Punishment for failure to maintain dorm room standards. There was no discharge package in the record and the  applicant  provided  no additional documentation.  The record contained a referral Enlisted Performance Report for the period of
3 July 2004 through 28 February 2005 due to three Letters of Reprimand for failure to go and for dorm room inspection failures. The applicant testified that he came from a long line of men that served their country and he was always taught to take responsibility for his actions. He stated dorm room inspections were his "Achilles heel" and admitted that he was reprimanded for not keeping it up to standards. Regarding the Vacation Action, he contended it was unfair because he self-reported losing track of the female he had escorted onto base, not realizing she had already departed the base. He also felt it unfair that he was called back from emergency leave due to a dorm room inspection failure. Due to lack of evidence and supporting documentation to explain the discharge, the Board concludes that the misconduct was a significant departure from the conduct expected of all military members. The Board finds the applicant's testimony and the evidence presented during the board insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity.

The applicant also contended he could have done better if he had not had multiple supervisors. However, when the record was reviewed, it appeared his raters in fact, were consistent. The  Board  found  this contention unfounded by evidence in the record and the applicant's testimony. The ORB opined that through the administrative actions taken, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded that the seriousness of the applicant's willful misconduct outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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, change of narrative reason for discharge or reenlistment code, and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's  Brief