AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEIBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

X	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZ.ATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON
x x x
x

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x

A49.00

1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICATlON 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 NUlllB.ER

03 Oct 2013	FD-2013-00537

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.

SAF!MRBR
550 C STREET WEST,SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY Ol'THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1!35COJ\4MAJ'ID DR. EE WING, 3R.D FLOOR
ANDREWS Ali'B, MD 20762-70t1

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00537	

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 discharge is upgraded to Honorable.

ISSUE: The applicant was discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for Unsatisfactory Performance: Failure to Progress in on the Job Training. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The record indicates the applicant was discharged from the United States Air Force for unsatisfactory performance, more specifically, failure to progress in on the job training (OJT). The applicant failed two End of Course exams for his career development course (CDC). Airmen are subject to discharge for unsatisfactory performance based on  documented failure to meet Air Force standards. The applicant initially enlisted into the Air Force with a four year enlistment with a guaranteed job specialty in Security Forces, however prior to leaving for basic training he was offered a chance to attend Pararecuse training, but was eliminated from the course due to multiple test failures. The applicant was hoping to be reclassified into the Security Forces career field which was his first choice upon entering the military; however he was reclassified as a Fire Truck mechanic. The applicant stated that he had no aptitude in the field of mechanics and tried his very best to be successful as a Fire Truck mechanic. However, after a thorough review of the record and the information supplied by the applicant, the DRB determined there is sufficient evidence to support his claim of inequity. The Board finds sufficient mitigation and extenuation based upon the applicant's overall duty performance  and letters of recommendation, of the applicant to consider his discharge harsh because there was inadequate time for probation and rehabilitation following the failure of his career development course (CDC). The Board concluded the characterization of the discharge was inequitable and grants upgrade of discharge to honorable.

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