AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGAJllIZATION Of' COUNSEL

..

-

_ _.,...... _.,.,_,.	...,...	..-.....·-··- - . - - --- --	---...-    ,  --------......--

'.-< '- I	• •	;	• ,     · ,...         •	• '• •	-

MEMBER    SITTING	HON	GEN	uornc	OTHER

DENY

+•

+•

+•

+*

+*

A49.00

1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDillONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE  HEARJNG

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

05 Sep 2013	FD-2013-00539

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.

+Narrative Reason
*Reenlistment Code

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF 11tE AIR FORC'E PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISC11ARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535COMMAND DR.EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS A1B. MD 20762- 70IL

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00539	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade 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 denies the upgrade of the change of reason and authority for discharge and change of reenlistment code.

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 honorable conditions discharge for Unsatisfactory Performance: Physical Standards. The applicant contends that he was having personal problems and his father was diagnosed with cancer which caused him to lose focus and become stressed.  The applicant does submit that he believes he deserves a second chance because he has matured and has become more mentally prepared for the rigors of the Air Force. The records indicated the applicant received five Letters of Reprimand and one Letter of Counseling. His misconduct  included failure to go to duty on time, failed fitness assessment on four separate occasion in a twenty-four month period, failure to comply Commanders policy, and failure to go to go to mandatory appointment. 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.

Although not specifically stated, applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes he made when he was young. The DRB recognized the applicant was 21 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.  The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  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 and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief