AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVJEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE TNTTIAL)

GRADE	AFSNJSSAN

APPEARANCE

x

X	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESSANO OR ORCANll.ATION or COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
x
x

x
x
x

A94.0S

A67.10

1 ORDER APPOINTING TllE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4  BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXMIBITS SUBMITIED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANC'E
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARfNG

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

13 Mar 2014	FD-2013-00768

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:

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST,SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OFTlt:t AIR FORCI:: f tRSONNELCOUNCIL
AIR fORCE DISCHARGE l<l:VltW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR. EE Wll"C.JRD F'WQR ANDRE\l<"SAPB.MO 2t762-7otl

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00768	

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.  The records indicated the applicant received one Article 15, eight Letters of Reprimand, and two Records of Individual Counseling.  His misconduct included late for duty (2x), failed to obey lawful order, misuse of government computer, failed to report to alternate duty location, failed to show for scheduled bag drag, failed to abide by rules governing use of a government computer by using file transfer to download and use unauthorized software and downloaded music for non-mission related purposes, failed to update work order database as instructed, failed to update PC support work order database as instructed, failed to update database with useful and relevant tracking information, failed to cease modifications or amendments to image process, failed to go to
duty on time, failed to answer cell phone during recall, and failed to maintain required items in mobility bag. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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