AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MJDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

X	RECORD REVIEW

AFSNJSSAN

YES	N11
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORCANl2ATION Of COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON
x x x x
x

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

A49.00

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LEITER OF NOTIFICATION
4  BRIEF OF PERSONN EL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMllTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARTNO

11£,\RINC DAii;;	CASE NUMOER

13 Mar 2014

FD-2013-00708

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 subm it an appl ication to the AFBCMR.

Names and votes will be made ava ilable to the applicant at the applicant's request.

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

SECRETARY Of THE AIR 'ORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
,\IR FORCE DISCllARCE REVI EW 80,\RD 15JS COMMAND DR.f.E WINC. JRD nOOlt ANDREWS Af"B,MD 1070-7.ol

AFHQ  FOR.1"10-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

CASE NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	FD-2013-00708

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 Unsatisfactory Performance - Failure to Progress in Military Training

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant self-eliminated from Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training.  Additionally, he received an Article 15 for failure to refrain from hazing another airman.  Although the reason for discharge was unsatisfactory performance, the applicant's misconduct was considered as a factor when the discharge was characterized.  The record indicted the applicant created a Face Book page entitled "KP is Mean". Although the Board did not condone the misconduct, the applicant admitted to his mistake, took responsibility for his actions, and apologized.  After consideration of the evidence in the record and the evidence provided by the applicant the Board found the service characterization to be too harsh.  Based on his self-elimination the narrative reason and RE code are correct and will remain unchanged.

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 under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief