AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEl\<fBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

.; €9UN ,l.
VES	No
x

X	RECORD REVIEW
NAME OFCOUNSEL AND OR ORCANlk\TION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

ING

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x
x x

A67.10
A49.00

l 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 NUMBER

03 Oct 2013	FD-2013-00613

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.

-

TO:

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

' .	NT	·.

SECRETARY Of THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AlR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1$15COMMANU DR, l!E WING.3RD 11LOOR
ANDREWS AFB,MD 20762- 7001

AFHQ  FORM 0-2077, JAL"!00	(EF-V2)	Previous

i
i AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE
'j	CASE NUMBER
FD-lOl3-00613	
l GENERAL:    The a;oplicant appeals for upgrade  of discharge to honorable.
'I
j
IThe applicant was ·offe:reci a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.
IThe attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.
1
FINDING:  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

The Board  finds that  neither  the  evidence  of record  nor  that provided  by the  applicant  substantiates  an
Iinequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.
! ISSUE:  The applicant was discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for minor disciplinary infractions and Unsatisfactory Performance: Failure to Progress in Training. The applicant
contends he had no:nental health problems before going on active duty with the Air Force. The applicant states that while in f1e service, he was pushed around, downgraded, and mentally abused by his supervisor. He also states that he was diagnosed with anxiety and had weekly visits with Mental Health until his discharge. According to the applicant's medical records dated 14 March 2013, he appeared in good health with no new acute or chronic complaints during his separation physical. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 and three Letters of Reprimand. His misconduct included failure to refrain from driving POV without valid driver's license on two separate occasions, made a false statement, failure to go to duty on time, failure to log off IMIS computer, failure to obtain gas mask prior to training as ordered, and failure to refrain from fopping up the welding mask of another airman while observing ac active welding process on multiple occasions. 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.

Additionally, althougn not used as a basis for discharge, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand and a Letter cf Counseling for failing to pass his fitness assessments. On 22 January 2013, the applicant was removed from five skill level upgrade training due to failure to progress. He failed to be certified in the required five level upgrade tasks and was unsuccessful in attempts to complete his four CDC volumes. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

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 discharge will automatically be upgraded after six months.  While a discharge may be upgraded after six 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 the record, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characterization, reason for the discharge or the reenlistment code.

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	

l'

i

I

·

upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief