AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD BEARING RECORD

NAMJ: OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

X	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION or COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

A93.0l A93.33 A94.55 A93.09

A67.10

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

HEARING DATE	CASE NVMBER

OS Feb 2014

FD-2013-00666

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 CSTREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

Sl!CRETARV OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNOL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR.EEWING,3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB,MD 2076:1-'1001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00666	

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 denies the upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE:    Applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct -Minor Disciplinary Infractions

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  He states immaturity, depression and work problems contributed to his misconduct.  The records indicated the applicant received one Article 15 and two Letters of Reprimand.  His misconduct included failed to obey a lawful order, lied to NCO (2x), failed to go to duty on time, failed to maintain dorm room standards, and with intent to deceive lied to NCO. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  Additionally, the DRB recognized the applicant was 21 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.

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