AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
GRADE

X	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

X*+

X*+ X*+
X*+ X*+

1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FlLE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARiNC    DATE	CASE NUMBER

03 Oct 2013	FD-2013-00553

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 and Authority
+RE Code

TO:

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

SECRETARV OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISOIARCE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AJ'B, MD 20762-7001

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

CASE NUMBER
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	FD-2013-00553

GENERAL:	The  applicant  appeals  for  upgrade  of  discharge  to  honorable,  to  change  the  reason  anci 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 request for the upgrade of the discharge, to change the reason and authority for discharge, and to change the reenlistment code is denied.

ISSUE:  Applicant received a General discharge for Unsatisfactory Participation

Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes he made when he was young. The record indicated the applicant had 22 unexcused absences from Unit Training Assembly (UTA) within a 12 month period.   The DRB recognized the applicant was 23 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