AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

X	RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC       OTHER

X+ X+ X+ X+

DENY

ISSUES

A94.56

INDEX NUMBER

X+

A67.10

A86.00	1 ORDERAPPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'SRELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDmONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

llEAJUNG  DATE	CASE NUMBER

17 Oct 2013	FD-2013-00621

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board 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.

+ CHANGE REASON AND AUTHORITY TO SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRl:TARV Of TIIEAIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCRAJl.GE UVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, El!WING, 3RD ft.OOR ANDREWS AFB,MD      62-?eOI

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00621	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reason and authority for the discharge.

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 grants the requested relief.

ISSUE:	applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions (Primary) and Mental Disorders, Specifically Adjustment Disorder (Secondary)

Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received one Article  15 and one Record of Individual Counseling.  This misconduct included struck two Navy personnel in the face with fist, struck female airman in the forehead with fist and failed to behave professionally and courteously when given an order by a SNCO.  The discharge notification listed other incidents for which the applicant did not receive counseling or disciplinary    measures and incidents from a prior duty station documented by MFR from two airmen the applicant had previously been stationed with at an overseas location.  The Board found the inclusion and consideration of the incidents that did not warrant counseling or other disciplinary measures and the MFRs to be inequitable. The Board found the primary reason for discharge to be too harsh and grants the requested relief.

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.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief