AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OFSERVICE MEl\IBER (LAST,FIRST l\UDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE	x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS A>'ID OR ORGANIZATIOll OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY

X+*

X+* X+*
X+*

ISSUES

A92.35 AOl.39 A94.55

INDEX NUMBER

A67.30

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3  LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TOTHE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITSSUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

X+*

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

170ct 2

------ -

013	FD-2013-00502
- -  ·------ ---- -	-  ---	- -  -	-	--	-	-   -  - -	--
Case heard in Washington, D.C.

- -----	--	--.	

- ....,.

,.
t	•     •

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:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST,SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781504742

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1$)5 COMMAND DR. EE WING,3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 2076?-7001

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

A
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00502	

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:	Upgrade  of the discharge, change of reason  and authority  for discharge,  and change of reenlistment code are denied.

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 Misconduct: Commission of Serious Offense. Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in sixteen years of service with no other adverse action or circumstances. He also states that his counsel was inadequate during his administrative discharge board hearing and feels he was punished twice due to the fact that he was a Technical Sergeant and was reduced to a Staff Sergeant during the administrative discharge board. The record indicated the applicant received two Letters of Reprimand and two Letters of Counseling. His misconduct included misused government computers by playing unauthorized games during duty hours, failure to go to duty on time, failed fitness assessment, and arrested for stealing books from the University of South Carolina Sumter bookstore. The applicant applied for and was accepted into Sumter Count's Pretrial Intervention (PTI) program. The applicant did
successfully complete PTI program and did avoid prosecution for stealing books from the University of  South Carolina Sumter bookstore. On 7 June 2012, the administrative discharge was convened. The Board, consisting of five officer members found that the applicant did commit a serious offense and recommended that the applicant be administratively separated with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The applicant was represented by counsel throughout his administrative discharge board process and according to his personnel records never complained how his counsel represented him during the board hearing. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his
negative behavior. The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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