AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

ER (LASf, FIRSf MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESSANDORO RGANIZATION OFCOVNSEL

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 LEITER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRlEF 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

02 Aug2013	FD-2013-00419

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.

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COVNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGI! REVIEW BOARD
JS)S COMMAND DR. EE WING,JRDFLOOR
ANDREWS AFB. MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00419	

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

Applicant submitted no issues regarding the inequity or impropriety of his discharge.  The record indicates the applicant received one Article 15, five Letters of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseling.  His misconduct included with intent to deceive made a false official statement to two NCOs, made a false statement to the first sergeant, failed to deny entry to unescorted third country nationals employed by a civilian construction company, received BAH while living in the dorm, walked behind running aircraft, appeared to be sleeping on duty, admitted to negligence of assigned duties, failed to report in full service dress uniform to commander, failed to have dorm room in inspection order, failed to go to duty on time, and assaulted a civilian police officer by spitting on him and kicking him.   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.

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