AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,F1RST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSNISSAN

ONAL APPEARANCE	X	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OP COUNSEL

X*

ER	A67.10
A49.00

HEAIUNGDATE	CASE NUMBER

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

17 Oct 2013

FD-2013-00634

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.
*Narrative Reason and Authority

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB,MD 20161-1001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00634	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

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 Failure to Meet Minimum Fitness Standards

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and states the discharge was primarily based on his failure to meet fitness standards and not his misconduct.    The records indicated the applicant received three Letters of Reprimand and two Letters of Counseling for misconduct.  This
misconduct included failed to meet minimum dorm room standards (2x), failed to provide proof of insurance and vehicle registration, failed to complete volume 2 of CDC on time after verbal counseling, and failed to complete phase 2 flight line training.  The Board noted his last incident of misconduct occurred on
5 August 2011, however the applicant was not discharged until 21 May 2012 after his fourth documented fitness failure.  After a complete and thorough review of the applicant's records, the Board found the applicant's misconduct to be minor in nature, therefore the primary reason for the discharge was found to be inequitable.  The Board grants the requested relief and grants a change to the narrative reason and authority for discharge.

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