AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRSf MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

X	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

MEMBER SITIING

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

+*

+*

+*

+*

+*

A49.00

I ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION 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 NUMBl!R

03 Oct 2013	FD-2013-00612

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 THE AIR FORCE Pl!RSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
IS3S COMMAND DR, EE WlNC, JRD FLOOR
ANDUWS AFB,MD 2076l-7001	.

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

,1

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00612	
l GENERAL:	The applicant appeals for change of reason and authority for discharge and change of	
! reeniistment code.	
i	
,;  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 change of reason and authority for discharge and change of reenlistment	
code.	
The Board finds ha' 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	
Perfcrr iance. The applicant contends during his discharge process he told he could re-enlist after six months.	
He also states that he wam:s to re-enlist in the Air Force so he can complete his college degree. The record	
indicates that on 29 January 2010, the commander notified the applicant of his recommendation to separate	
him with an Honorable discharge under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.26.1.1,	
Unsatisfactory Performance specifically, Failure to Perform assigned Duties properly. The applicant failed	
three block test anci was eliminated from the course. The applicant was provided specialized individual	
assistance (SIA) after failing each block test, washed back in training to help him progress in training, and he	
was counseled by his instructors. The records indicate the applicant was provided ample time to prepare and	
I. offered assistance in preparation for training. Therefore, further rehabilitation efforts were not warranted. The DRB opined fi1at through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change	
	
! his negative behavior. The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed	
	
j the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career. The characterization of the discharge received by	
the applicant was found to be appropriate.	
'	
1	
! The applicant stated he was told his discharge would automatically be upgraded.  The Board noted the issue	
'.  was common result of miscommunication, at the time of discharge, when the applicant is briefed that their	
j discharge will automatically be upgraded after six months.  While a discharge may be upgraded after six	
1      months, the upgrade is by no means automatic.  A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the Board	
,  can establish that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  After a thorough review of	
ij  the record, the Board foand no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization, reason for	
l,   the discharge or the reenlistment code.	
	
ICONCLUSION:	The  Discharge  Review  Board  concludes  that  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the	
l 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	

,

··